Stephanie McCurry Offers Remarks on Confederate Reckoning

Oh sure, I have plenty to say about this book. But let's hear it straight form the author first. You'll have my two cents in a later post.

Peace,
Keith

Rebellion, Revolution (or Something Entirely Different)?

Greetings Cosmic Americans!

Yesterday (as I am wont to do) I issued a call to those following my Twitter feed to provide Cosmic America with a question of the controversial variety. One that might stir some embers, so to speak.

I got a number of great responses, many of which dealt with cause, emancipation, even the state of the field. But my favorite came from none other than Pete Carmichael, the director of the Civil War Institute. "Was," he asked, "the Civil War a revolution?"

Now this could have meant a couple of things. One, he could have been referring to the revolutionary character of the war itself - were the great issues being decided on the battlefields the makings of a revolution of sorts? Two, he might have meant the questionably revolutionary nature of secession. I have a sneaking suspicion he was referring to the former (perhaps I should have asked) but details notwithstanding, he got me thinking about the latter.

So I will open the floor for discussion. Was secession and the formation of the Confederate States an act of revolution? Without question, plenty of the fire-eating types rang some revolutionary bells during the secession crisis - invoking the oratory of the revolutionary generation and demanding a separation from a tyrannical government many thought was poised to deny white southerners their rights as Americans. On the other hand, cooler heads thought twice about the rhetoric of revolution. After all, in their formulation the southern states claimed the legitimate connection to the founders. The north had gone astray. In this light, the Confederacy was not at all revolutionary but merely carrying on the American tradition under a new government.

What do you think?

Keith

Was the Confederacy a Nation?

The Confederate States of America. Was it a legitimate nation? I mean...they had a flag and everything - but more often than not, a flag just isn't enough.

Greetings Cosmic Americans!

Last week, I gave a talk on the turning points of 1862. As a sidebar, I mentioned that the Confederacy was indeed a nation...it just didn't last for very long. What followed was an audible groan from the audience. The (mostly northern) group insisted that what passed as a nation in the southern United States was in fact nothing more than a collection of said states in rebellion. No nation.

I asked them to think about that for a minute. The Confederacy resembled a nation in many respects. They had executive and legislative branches of a national government. They had a constitution. They had an army and a navy. They were granted belligerent status by European powers. Not enough? Even the Lincoln administration recognized the Confederacy as a nation de facto when it was convenient. For example - you do not exchange prisoners with rebels, nor can you blockade yourself. But in the end many deny the Confederacy national status because they lost the war. I am not sure that I won many over. They seemed determined to disagree with me. Always careful to choose my battles, I moved on to the topic at hand

But as naming is the origin of all particular things, perhaps we should reflect on some further aspects of nation, nationalism, and indeed...legitimacy. If by recognizing a Confederate nation are we implying as well the existence of Confederate nationalism? Historians have debated this problem for some time. Some say it did not exist in strength - pointing to protests, the relatively few number of slaveholders, etc. Others say that government officials "created" Confederate nationalism and thus duped the white southern populace into supporting the cause. Still others say that despite the privations that went hand in hand with living through war, white southerners remained virulently committed to Confederate nationalism.

I side with the latter - and push the issue even further. The evidence suggests a strong southern commitment to a national vision that existed before the war broke out. In the South, this commitment easily fit with a new national experiment that to white southerners more closely resembled the intentions of the founding generation. Generally speaking, they were nationalistic and created a nation to fit their vision - a slave-holding democratic republic free from the tyranny of an outside power.

Sound familiar? They didn't put George Washington on the national seal for shits and giggles.

And here's where the trouble really gets brewing. Recognizing the Confederacy as a legitimate nation (albeit with a pretty short shelf life) might give one away as a member of the neo-Confederate ranks. Not meaning to complicate the obvious,  I would still like to point out that such logic is profoundly flawed. Dear readers, rest assured - I am not throwing my support behind the Confederacy. But I will stand behind my position. The white people of the South created a new nation. They went to war to protect it and in short order...failed on a catastrophic level.

Peace,
Keith

Which is the Odder Monument?

Greetings Cosmic Americans!

I have a hunch which one is going to win but I am curious of your opinion nonetheless. So is it...

Stonewall at Manassas or....

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Old Pete at Gettysburg?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Inquiring minds want to know.

Peace,

Keith

The Confederate Naval Strategy

[caption id="attachment_2851" align="alignleft" width="319" caption="CSS Alabama"][/caption]

 

Greetings Cosmic Americans!

We have talked a little about relative advantages and disadvantages for the United States and the Confederate States at the beginning of the war. One of the most striking advantages for the United States was their Navy. In short, they had one and the Confederacy did not. True, the US Navy was small and dispersed, but in April 1861 they could at least muster a few ships into service against the Rebels. Further, the US had an established officer corps and a vast capacity to build a great fleet (which they did in short order). The Confederates did not and could never match the naval strength of the United States. They had no ships (at first), only a  handful of officers from the prewar Navy, and no merchant marine. So how does a nation prepare a naval strategy with such limited assets?

The Confederates used innovation, privateers, and commerce raiding - and put forth a pretty decent effort at that. The Rebel navy employed torpedoes (mines) to guard the entrances to their harbors, developed and utilized ironclad, ram, and submarine technology, and privateers and commerce raiders on the high seas pulled US ship off of blockade duty to deal with the Confederate nuisance.

[caption id="attachment_2856" align="alignright" width="220" caption="CSS Hunley"][/caption]

And while all of these things took their toll on the US Navy, in the end the Confederate strategy inflicted minimal damage on the overall United States war effort. The torpedoes (in at least one case) were "damned," ironclads and rams were underpowered (the Rebs had no capacity to build the big steam engines needed to power these heavier vessels) and not effective on the high seas, their one and only submarine, the CSS Hunley, inexplicably sank after sending its first victim to the bottom, privateers had nowhere really to sell their captured prizes, and commerce raiders like the CSS Alabama, while crippling to the US merchant marine, could not engage vessels from other countries - and the US had shifted much of its shipping to foreign bottoms.

There are a number of "might haves" in the story of the CS Naval strategy - ironclads under construction in Britain and Denmark that either never made it into Confederate hands or arrived too late to be of service makes for a good example. I guess we'll never know what would have happened if the Rebs had gotten their ships. Could they have broken the Union blockade? I tend not to speculate about such things.

Peace,

Keith

James McPherson on Causes

Greetings Cosmic Americans!
Here, historian James McPherson offers his assessment on how former Confederates moved way from the slavery issue when they tried to explain the cause of the Civil War. He highlights state rights and cultural nationalism. What do you think?

Peace,
Keith

Flags....Blowing in the Wind

 

Greetings Cosmic Americans!

I spend a lot of time scouring the Internet looking for interesting things to write about. For example, the new Poet Laureate, Natasha Trethewey, writes on reflections of the South, memory, and the racial legacies of yes, you guessed it, the Civil War. You can expect a post about her work coming up in the near future...just as soon as I have had a closer look at her poetry.

But my point today is meant to be a service for all of those in cyberspace who identify to the various Confederate flags incorrectly. So many refer to the "Stars and Bars" when they actually mean something else, and this practice is something of a pet peeve of mine...I know, it's the little things , right? But anyway, and in an altruistic spirit of education, I offer the flags...and their proper names. (PS - the title of this post is an obscure reference that has nothing to do with Confederate flags but everything to do with an 80s band from Santa Barbara - guess who they are and get a Cosmic shout out).


First Confederate National Flag aka "The Stars and Bars"

 

 

 

 

 

 



 

Army of Northern Virginia Battle Flag

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 



 

Second National Confederate Flag aka "The Stainless Banner"

 

 

 

 

 

 



 

Third National Confederate Flag

 

 

 

 



 

Confederate Navy Jack

 

 

 

 

So there you are - a test will commence shortly.

Peace,

Keith

Rivers in the Confederacy

Greetings Cosmic Americans!

Last time I spoke of an established United States Navy as an advantage for the Union in the Civil War. Keeping with the water theme, I thought I would turn analysis south and talk about rivers.

Rivers during the Civil War era worked effectively in two significant ways. One, as formidable barriers to attacking armies and two, as avenues of advance for attacking armies and navies. Whether or not rivers helped or hindered the Confederate cause depended on which way the attacks were being launched and which way the rivers flowed.

Not generally one for counterfactuals, it is interesting to speculate nevertheless what might have happened had Kentucky voted to secede from the Union. For one thing, the Ohio River would have been the Confederacy's northern frontier and a really neat way to keep United States forces busy figuring out how to move armies across it. But since this didn't happen, we can move on to how rivers, especially in the western theater  worked against the Rebels.

United States forces had three perfectly suited avenues of advance right in to the heart of the Confederacy. The Tennessee and Cumberland Rivers more than once provided the means by which Union forces made their way south. And of course the Mississippi River (despite the Confederate defense network that lasted until 1863) worked both to bisect the Confederate states and serve as a grand highway for Union vessels. So ultimately, we will have to count the primary western river system as a disadvantage to the Confederates.

The rivers in the eastern theater had the potential to serve the Rebels well, unless of course Union forces moved inland from the coast. And this is precisely what George McClellan did in 1862. While the Potomac served as a barrier at the northern Virginia border, McClellan bypassed this and steamed inland using Virginia's eastward flowing river system. But we know what happened to him....opportunities lost, as they say. But in the event of an overland attack, eastern rivers would prove helpful for the Confederates. The Rappahannock, York, and James rivers in Virginia worked as a series of defensive lines and a real challenge for any army moving south from the Virginia northern frontier. Just ask anyone...like Union generals Burnside or Grant, for example.

Peace,
Keith

Spirit of the South

Greetings Cosmic Americans!

How were things shaping up for the Confederate cause by April 1862...one year into the war? Meh - not so great. Both the battles of Shiloh and Ft. Pulaski ended in Confederate defeat. By the middle of the month, Union forces were in motion against New Orleans and the Virginia Peninsula. Stonewall was kicking up a fuss in the Shenandoah Valley but otherwise, things looked pretty bleak.

Still - I believe there were signs that spirits were high, especially in the press. Here is a little snippet from the Richmond Times-Dispatch from April 17, 1862 concerning Confederate patriotism and sympathy for the cause across the Potomac in Georgetown.

We learn that on a recent occasion in Georgetown when the clergyman of one of the churches read the prayer of thanksgiving for Northern victories, most of the congregation rose from their knees, and some of them left the church. The flame of patriotism is still burning brightly in the very strongholds of despotism.

In a matter of months, Robert E. Lee would take the helm of Rebel forces outside of Richmond and really give the Confederate populace something to cheer about. But for now....a little patriotism would have to go a long way.

Peace,

keith

Confederates Are Not Nazis

[caption id="attachment_721" align="alignleft" width="300" caption="Lee and his generals. Traitors yes - Nazis no. "][/caption]

Greetings Cosmic Americans!

Did you ever think that you would see the day when I would defend Confederates? Well...this is not so much a defense as a clarification. Nothing drives me more crazy  than when people flippantly compare Confederates to Nazis. Seriously - it happens all the time...and by people respected in their fields. I suppose understand when people want to make the worst possible connection to a nation founded to preserve slavery - it's just bad history.

For example - Julian Bond, chairman of the NAACP and a man for whom I hold a great deal of respect and admiration...not to mention, have shared a few meals with - (he is an excellent and most fascinating dinner companion) has missed the mark in the Confederate/Nazi regard. Having publicly referred to the Confederate flag as a "Swastika" he explicitly connected the governments. The two are not even close.

Many others have made similar comparisons...suggesting that the Confederacy was akin to Nazi Germany due solely to the southern nation's racial policies. Authors such as Peter Kalajian, to site just one example, claim that both societies stood for hate, oppression, wanton murder, and destruction.

Not so fast. Now no one would ever accuse me of standing up for the Rebels, but let's get a couple of things clear. One - the southern states seceded to protect slavery. Two - this, as I see it, was treason. Period. But they were not Nazis. They did not resemble Nazis in any way, shape, or form.

The Confederate States of America was a democratic republic, with a Constitution and a representative government run by elected officials held accountable for their actions. It was a slave holding republic to be sure - just like the United States of America from 1776 to 1865. Just like it. The significant difference - the CSA was a little more clear on the whole "permanence of slavery" thing.

[caption id="attachment_722" align="alignright" width="165" caption="New Georgia state flag proposed by the editorial staff of The Onion - ok, I have to admit....this made me laugh. "][/caption]

Yes I know...whenever a bunch of white supremacist a-holes get together they trot out all kinds of symbols - including the Swastika and the Confederate flag. But what do these guys know? I am not sure that any of them could give you much information on either of the governments they are supposedly representing.

So next time you hear some one make the tenuous comparison between a 19th century democracy and a 20th century Fascist dictatorship - just roll your eyes. Or better yet - ask them to clarify. Exactly how are the two related???

Peace,

Keith

Black Confederates. Really? REALLY?????

Greetings Cosmic Americans!

So - I've been on Youtube again. It's a guilty pleasure, really. Last night was a real kicker. I followed a few video "suggestions" to a series of posts on black Confederate soldiers. There seems to be this warped idea out there that there were thousands and thousands of blacks serving as soldiers in the Confederate army. One estimation claimed as many as 90,000 black people shouldered a musket for the glorious CSA.

You have got to be freakin' kidding me. 90,000?? That is bigger than the whole Army of Northern Virginia at its grandest. Now I am not saying that blacks were absent from the military scene. When the ANV (or any other CS army) went somewhere, they took black people with them. They were - you guessed it - slaves. They did what they were forced to do. Laundry, cooking, felling trees, building fortifications, etc. Slaves were drafted in to Confederate service in others ways too (much to the irritation of their masters). They built fortifications around Atlanta, Richmond and Petersburg, for example. These were the toils of slaves. They were not willingly serving the Confederate cause.

The very idea of this is perverse at best. Imagine - blacks serving a country conceived on the idea of racial inequality and the protection of the "peculiar" institution. Wow. Does that mean that a slave or two may at one time have picked up a musket, maybe - but regiments or even divisions of black soldiers. You think we would have heard of them.

Seriously, I have never seen or heard of a letter written by a Union soldier describing the several regiments of black Confederates he faced in battle. I have never read a newspaper describing black Confederate divisions defending a Rebel position. I am guessing it's because they didn't exist. I mean really, don't you think Ken Burns would have at least said something about this? (Insert Ashokon Farewell theme music here..."Dear Mama - today 90,000 black Reb soldiers marched by...we fear the worst...I have dysentery....blah blah blah.")

Now the prospect of raising limited black troops had crossed a few Rebels' minds. Even Robert E. Lee thought it was a good idea. But nothing of significance ever happened in this regard. Rebels in power decided that if they armed blacks, then what they had been fighting for would have been pretty pointless. Late, late, late in the war CSA Congress finally passed legislation to raise a few black troops as sort of a last ditch effort. And there were reports of a handful of black troops drilling in Richmond early in April 1865. But this was way too little waaaay too late.

Now after the war, some United Confederate Veterans dressed up a few former slaves in Confederate gray and paraded them around, I suppose, to show that the war wasn't about slavery and that blacks were in favor of Confederate independence. Oy.

So if you are trying to prove that black people supported the Confederate war effort just stop. Or better yet, show me some real evidence that these thousands and thousands of black soldiers actually existed. Put them on a map, show me the battle reports, anything. Just saying they were around doesn't make it so - evidence does.

Peace,
Keith

Know Your Rights!

OK I know...it's the title of a Clash song. But it just sort of popped into my head during this morning's run. It got me to thinking about rights - and then state rights - and then the secession crisis and the war. Really...doesn't everything lead me to think about the Civil War era? (the answer is yes, of course).

So as you probably know, a lot of neo-Confederate and Sons of Confederate Veteran types like to talk about these so-called rights a lot. Indeed - they claim that these rights were what the war was all about. Forget about all that crazy slavery stuff. Slavery as the cause of the war was, I suppose, just the invention of a bunch of wimpy tree hugging college professors. (you know - those who practice the dreaded "revisionist" history).

Well, if you are in line with our Confederate sympathizing friends, you are probably just confused. Now I'm not saying that state rights were not important, they were. But the usurpation of any state right "principle" did not cause the Civil War.

Guess what did. Now brace yourself...it was slavery. Yep - you might want to write that down and refer to it if you are still confused. You see friends, the Republican party headed by Lincoln knew that they could not interfere with slavery where it already existed, but the territories were a different story. They wanted territories and any states formed from these territories to be reserved for free labor. That means - no slavery. Slave owners could not establish slavery or take their slaves there, no matter what.

Bummer for the slave holders. And they were pretty upset about it, too. They thought Lincoln and his crew were mad abolitionists (they weren't - but more on that later). Now the real problem was a little more complex - remember, all this carrying on about slavery had to do with places outside the South. But slave holders along with most of the rest of white southern society believed that if the Republicans could successfully go after slavery in one place, then it wouldn't be long before they went after it elsewhere. That means the glorious South - and the prospect of total abolition made white people very nervous.

Does secession make a little more sense now? Southern states seceded when the white citizenry perceived an eminent attack on the cornerstone of their society - slavery. That would mean the loss of enormous wealth and the upheaval of their social structure. Whether you believe it or not (you should believe it, because it's true), every white person in the South had a stake in the institution of slavery - and many supported secession to preserve it, no matter what stories the former Rebels came up with after they lost the war.

Now, if you ever run into one of these Johnnies who insist you have been brainwashed by a bunch of revisionists, just ask them to tell you exactly which rights the southern states seceded to protect. They can name any three. Be sure to give them a few minutes to think it over (I mean....come on, let's be fair).
Keith