Civil War Historians

We Could Just As Easily Have Waited For the Civil War Bicentennial

September 1, 2010 By Kevin Levin 17 Comments

Gettysburg College historian, Allen Guelzo, has a short op-ed piece in the Gettysburg Times on the ongoing efforts to commemorate the Civil War Sesquicentennial. Guelzo assumes a rather gloomy posture owing to the small number of states that have organized commissions, the inability of the federal government to get involved, and the continued difficulty to attract African Americans to Civil War related events. All of these point, especially, the last one, deserve our attention and even concern, but I tend to think that Guelzo’s skepticism is misplaced.

To be completely honest, I am surprised as to what has been done already to acknowledge the 150th anniversary of the war. There is no reason why we must officially acknowledge this milestone. We could just as easily wait for the bicentennial year. It would be nice to see a few more states approach the level of activity to be found in Virginia, Pennsylvania, and North Carolina, but let’s not hold our breadth. What Guelzo misses entirely is the number of museums along with state and local historical societies, which will organize events, teaching materials, and other resources for their local communities. How about the attention that the National Park Service will bring to all of this? Yes, their exhibitions and events will vary in quality, but that should not be of any great concern. Perhaps Guelzo’s concern about the number of state commissions is more about how it reflects on Americans’ overall attitude to its collective past. He may be asking, “Are we this disinterested in our past?” Yes and no. On the one hand we are in the middle of a pretty bad recession, which has no end in sight. It’s no surprise that remembering events that took place long ago through the spending of millions of dollars may not seem like the best use of tax dollars. I happen to agree with that sentiment. On the other hand, perhaps one can make the case that there is no longer a need for a top-down model of national historic commemoration. Information is much more easily shared via the Internet and information is much more easily accessible by a broader spectrum of the general public. We can see this in action here in Virginia as local communities are taking the lead in organizing Civil War commissions.

Guelzo concludes with the following:

There is a much to celebrate in the 150th anniversary of the Civil War. There is also a great deal of anger and disappointment, and in some places, downright contempt. The Civil War re-enactment community mistrusts academic Civil War historians; the academics, in turn, are regarded by the public historians as gate-crashers of their collections and exhibitions; public historians suspect relic and memorabilia dealers of piracy; and the general public seems interested in history only when it’s painted-up in bizarre, horror-movie formats. These are all obstacles in the path of a worthwhile Sesquicentennial. But the greatest challenge of the Sesquicentennial will be how to synthesize the Civil War’s “old” story of battles-and-reunion with the Civil War’s “new” story of race and gender. Until that begins to happen, and until the competing re-enactment, academic, and public empires decide that they all have a common stake in the Sesquicentennial, state legislatures, historical societies, and organizations are likely to take the safe road, and call the whole thing off.

There is something to this, but it smacks of arm-chair navel gazing. The divisions between various constituencies cannot be so easily drawn and in the case of the relationship between reenactors (general public) and academic historians, I would argue that it is simply false. I also think that Guelzo’s characterization of the general public’s interest in the past is also way off the mark. It doesn’t explain the popularity of Glory or the fact that last year’s Signature Conference, sponsored by the University of Richmond and Virginia Sesquicentennial Commission attracted over 2,000 people. Guelzo is absolutely right that the biggest challenge is expanding the general public’s understanding of the war beyond the battlefield, but even here I would suggest that he misses the mark. Here in Virginia I’ve traveled to numerous historical institutions for exhibits and lectures over the past ten years that focus on issues of race and gender. You can even find it at the Museum of the Confederacy. ["Before Freedom Came" takes us all the way back to 1992.] No doubt, public historians have struggled with the question of how to attract African Americans to Civil War related events, but there is no magic bullet here. All you can do is continue to work to present the general public with projects that reflect solid scholarship and a commitment to inclusiveness.

The extent and scope of our national Civil War commemoration will reflect local urges to take steps to organize. No doubt, we will see much more of it in certain places around the country, but we should keep in mind that it does not have to be all or nothing.

A Pension For a Vote

August 28, 2010 By Kevin Levin 12 Comments

I can’t tell you how appreciative I am of the help that I’ve received over the years from my readers. My Crater manuscript is filled with references shared by readers and my own thinking has been shaped by the rich commentary that follows many of the posts on the subject. That continues as I begin my next book-length study of black Confederates. Today I was contacted by NPS historian, John Stoudt, who came across the following reference in Ed Ayers’s book, The Promise of the New South: Life After Reconstruction (Oxford University Press, 1992).

The following passage comes in a chapter that examines the culture of elections during the postwar period and the manipulation of the black vote.

It usually took far more than such bullying, though to gain the votes of disaffected or apolitical blacks. One Democrat wrote to North Carolina Senator Matt Ransom to solicit his support for a pension for “a very deserving honest old colored man He is very destitute and unable to work and he certainly is deserving a pension (if any body is). He votes the democratic ticket straight out and uses his influence for the democrats, and in the last election his vote and influence with that of twenty or thirty more colored voters saved the democrat party in my county.” The white Democrat had promised his black ally that he would “do all in my power to get his pension for him. I want him to have it and I want him to have it bad.” [W.H. Lucas to Sen. Matt Ransom, Jan. 6, 1892, Ransom Papers, UNC-SHC]

My question is whether it is possible to narrow down the type of pension that an elderly black man might have received in 1892. According to James G. Hollandsworth Jr., former slaves did not begin to receive pensions for their time in the Confederate army until 1927. Regardless of whether the pension had anything to do with the war itself, this should remind us that “black Confederate” pensions must be interpreted within the context of Jim Crow and white political control. Black men, who applied for pensions based on their roles as servants/slaves during the war had to maneuver through this structure and the possibility of financial gain surely would have influenced how they responded on the official forms. This passage also should caution us in drawing a direct connection between a pension form and the war. It is possible that some pensions given to former slaves reflect the kinds of election practices described above.

Filed Under: Civil War Historians Tagged With: black Confederates

Mac Wycoff on Richard Kirkland

August 27, 2010 By Kevin Levin 12 Comments

[Part 1, Part 2, and John Hennessy's assessment of the evidence]

Not too long ago I featured a guest post by Michael Schaffner on the subject of Richard Kirkland. Mr. Schaffner did extensive research on Online sources related to the Kirkland story which left him with a number of questions re: the veracity of the story. I thought it was well documented so I decided to feature it on Civil War Memory. I’ve also written a bit about our fascination with the Kirkland story. In the end, while I’ve expressed skepticism about the story based on the available evidence I am much more interested in our continued attraction to this particular story. It’s a wonderful case study for understanding how we, as a nation, have chosen to remember our Civil War.

Former National Park Service historian, Mac Wycoff, has done extensive research on the story and has written up his findings for a series of posts at Mysteries and Conundrums. This is a must read for those of you who are interested in this story. I suggest that if you have comments that you leave them with Mac’s post so that he can address them directly. Finally, let me just reiterate that my goal in writing about Kirkland has never been to “debunk” or use the story to “attack” the South. Such a suggestion is silly and not really worth acknowledging. I use this site to ask questions. If you are uncomfortable with the questions that I ask than you really need to find yourself another blog.

Filed Under: Civil War Historians, Memory, Public History Tagged With: National Park Service, Richard Kirkland

The Heart of the Matter

August 19, 2010 By Kevin Levin 3 Comments

I know some of you are probably already sick and tired of the frequency of posts on black Confederates. Well, get use to it. I am in the process of co-writing an article about Silas Chandler and in the beginning stages of what I hope to be a book-length manuscript on the subject. Tomorrow I am finally going to film my segments for a documentary on the subject, which is being produced by a film professor at East Carolina University. As a Civil War enthusiast who is interested in memory I couldn’t be more intrigued by this subject. The most frustrating part of this debate for me is the way the question is all too often framed: Were there black Confederates and, if so, how many? As I’ve said before, if we are talking about soldiers than it is a pretty straightforward process of providing enlistment papers to demonstrate this particular status within the army. Anything else, including pension papers must be seen as inconclusive given what we know about the process. As I see it the number is so small that any account will have to demonstrate how the individual soldier managed to maneuver through the strict enforcement that the Confederate government instituted when it came to the recruitment of free and enslaved blacks. That, of course, will be an interesting story and one that I would love to hear more about.

More importantly, the contours of this debate prevents us from honestly exploring the lives of individual free and enslaved blacks during the war. We lump all of them together as “loyal” “devoted” servants, who along with their white comrades “sacrificed” all for the Confederacy. In this we learn next to nothing about the individuals themselves and how they understood the experience of camp life/battle and the time away from loved ones. Consider the number of narratives that include the servant/slave bringing home his wounded master. Just about all of these accounts come from the postwar period, but I’ve never come across an article written by the slave in question, which, of course, is not surprising given the illiteracy rates. We know that Silas Chander escorted Andrew Chandler home after the latter was wounded in battle. In most Online accounts this is reduced to his supposed faithfulness and devotion to Andrew, which fall neatly into the broader postwar slave narrative. Now there is little doubt that servants shared the challenges of camp life and even, on occasion, the dangers of the battlefield with their masters. As historians we must be receptive to the ways in which the war shaped the relationship between slave and master. I have little reason to doubt that certain bonds of affection would have been established as a result, but this cannot be the beginning and end of our analysis of these men. In the case of Silas he had a wife and child back in Palo Alto, Mississippi. But even if Silas did not have a family we should not be surprised that he might choose to bring his master home. After all, he was still legally bound to his owner and may have viewed running away as more of a risk even though thousands of fellow slaves did just that. What I find the most troubling about all of this is the extent to which slaves like Silas and even those who turn out to be legitimate soldiers (however small the number) will be ignored because it turns out that most people are not really interested in recounting their experiences. The approach is to engage in hard-headed reductionism that may satisfy those desperate to vindicate a certain view of the past, but gets us nowhere in terms of understanding these men and the unique challenges they faced as black southerners. Unfortunately, I suspect that in just about all of these cases we will be able to say very little because of a lack of sufficient documentation. Of course, this will not stop the SCV from continuing to butcher this part of the past by placing headstones that distort the distinction between slave and soldier. They did it with Weary Clyburn and in the case of Silas Chandler they placed an “Iron Cross” in front of his marker. This needs to be denounced, not simply as bad history, but as a blatant attempt to use the lives of others as a means to an end.

My point is simple. We have got to get over ourselves when confronting the past. I do not claim complete objectivity when doing history nor do I believe anyone achieves such a perspective, but we can help ourselves by asking the right questions and by exercising a healthy dose of skepticism.

Filed Under: Civil War Culture, Civil War Historians, Lost Cause, Memory, Slavery, Southern History Tagged With: black Confederates, Silas Chandler

George Washington Williams’s Crater

July 28, 2010 By Kevin Levin 19 Comments

One of the most important sources within the early historiography of the early black counter-memory of the Civil War and the Crater is George Washington Williams’s, A History of the Negro Troops in The War of the Rebellion, 1861-1865 (1888). Williams benefited from publication of the Official Records and includes entire reports to supplement the narrative. [Click here for a short biographical sketch.] A History of the Negro Troops is an incredibly detailed history of black volunteers that covers all of the major engagements from the Civil War in which they were involved. Williams discusses discrimination in the army, the difficult relationship between enlisted men and white officers, as well as their performance on the battlefield. Along the way Williams takes every opportunity to wax poetic about the significance of his subject:

The part enacted by the Negro in the war of the Rebellion is the romance of North American history. It was midnight and noonday without a space between; from the Egyptian darkness of bondage to the lurid glare of civil war; from clanking chains to clashing arms; from passive submission to the cruel curse of slavery to the brilliant aggressiveness of a free soldier; from a chattel to a person; from the shame of degradation to the glory of military exaltation; and from deep obscurity to fame and martial immortality. No one in this era of fraternity and Christian civilization will grudge the Negro soldier these simple annals of his trials and triumphs in a holy struggle for human liberty. Whatever praise is bestowed upon his noble acts will be sincerely appreciated, whether from former foes or comrades in arms. For by withholding just praise they are not enriched, nor by giving are they thereby impoverished. (xiii-xiv)

On the Crater

At the critical moment, when the enemy could not only hold this opening in his works, but threatened to sweep through and rout Meade, the Black Division was ordered to charge and gain the crest beyond the crater. Three veteran white divisions had been hurled back in confusion, but these Negro troops were sent forward to contend with an infuriated, brave, and numerous foe. They were gallantly led, and nobly followed where duty and devotion were terribly tested…. They had borne themselves with conspicuous gallantry, and having done all that was required of them were withdrawn to their works….(249) The Negro soldiers’ valor was, after this engagement, no more questioned than his loyalty, and the reputation secured at such a high price was kept untarnished to the end of the campaign. (250)

What I find interesting is that Williams does not reference the slaughter of black soldiers after the battle. Based on the sources utilized for his study it is clear that he was aware of it. Perhaps Williams wanted to keep the focus on the bravery and manliness of the men, which would have been lost with descriptions of helplessness at the hands of angry Confederates. I am going to have to give it some more thought.

Of course, I refer to Williams in my manuscript, but it is sad to think of just how much of what I have collected over the past few years will not make it into the book. Oh well, I guess that is what the blog is for.

Filed Under: Civil War Historians, Memory, William Mahone/Crater Tagged With: Crater, USCTs

Why Doesn’t the Confederacy Just Fade Away?

July 23, 2010 By Kevin Levin 5 Comments

Historian David Blight has written a little editorial that is making its way around various newspapers today. The last section caught my attention and I thought it would make for a thought provoking post:

In 1907, Mosby drove a dagger into the heart of Lost Cause mythology about slavery: “I am not ashamed that my family were slaveholders. The South went to war on account of slavery. I am not as honored for having fought on the side of slavery – a soldier fights for his country … the South was my country.” Why doesn’t the Confederacy just fade away? Is it because we are irresistibly fascinated by catastrophic loss? Or is it something else? Is it because the Confederacy is to this day the greatest conservative resistance to federal authority in American history? Or is it that nothing punctuates the long and violent story of white supremacy in America quite like the brief four years of the Confederate States of America?

Is it really all about federalism? Or the honoring of ancestors? Or valor and loyalty? Or regional identity? Or about white racial solidarity in an America becoming browner and more multi-ethnic every day? In 1951, in an essay probing how and why Americans have a difficult time facing their racial past, AfricanAmerican writer James Baldwin left a telling observation: “Americans have the most remarkable ability to alchemize all bitter truths into an innocuous but piquant confection and transform their moral contradictions, or public discussion of such contradictions, into a proud decoration, such as are given for heroism on the field of battle.”

We should decorate our battlefield heroes, and we have been doing so for a century and a half. We can only wonder whether this time, during the sesquicentennial of the Civil War, we can finally face the past and probe the real causes and consequences of that conflict, or whether we will content ourselves again with unexamined moral contradictions and piquant confections in our public memory. If we do it better this time, we will need stronger verbs than “involved,” and a good dose of Mosby’s candor.

Update: Check out Richard Williams’s thoughtful response to this editorial as well as the comments section.

Filed Under: Civil War Culture, Civil War Historians, Lost Cause Tagged With: Confederate History Month, David Blight

Bud Robertson and the Legacy of Union

July 16, 2010 By Kevin Levin 3 Comments

I am having a great time here in Hagerstown at the Civil War Preservation Trust’s annual Teachers Conference. Today was the first day. I had a chance to chat with Bud Robertson at lunch and I thoroughly enjoyed his presentation. It’s a talk that I’ve heard before, but it is always nice to listen to a man who has dedicated his life to scholarship and education. The organization was sad to learn that this will be his final appearance. It looks like Professor Robertson is going to retire this year.

Robertson spoke on the many legacies of the Civil War, but he was the most eloquent when it came to the importance of Union. According to Robertson, this nation did not have a history until the Civil War. Robertson quoted Lincoln and rammed home his belief that the Civil War was nothing less than a test of whether the work of the Founding Fathers could be preserved. There is nothing surprising about such a view, but I bet some people are taken back by the fact that it is Robertson’s view. After all, Robertson is best known for biographies of Confederate leaders and he is to a certain extent the academic darling of organizations such as the Sons of Confederate Veterans.

Unfortunately, there was no time for questions. I really wanted to ask him how he views the uptick in rhetoric of secession that is coming from both the grass roots level as well as our elected leaders. To what extent should we view this as a legacy of the Civil War? I wanted to know, given his comments about the value of Union, whether we should encourage this rhetoric and whether he believes it ought to be viewed as patriotic. Tonight we will get together for dinner and a talk by Peter Carmichael and tomorrow we are off to Gettysburg.

[photo of t-shirt at Gettysburg Visitor Center]

Filed Under: Civil War Historians, Memory, Teaching