Youtube Presents - Ruin Nation: Destruction and the American Civil War

While doing my usual Youtube scan-and-search-for-Civil-War-stuff exercise, I came across this snappy little series from the University of Georgia Press promoting some of their latest releases. This one features Megan Kate Nelson's Ruin Nation: Destruction and the American Civil War - a book I enjoyed very much. Have a look, particularly if you have an interest in an analysis at the intersection of environmental and cultural history.

K

Casting a Wider Net

You may have noticed that I have changed the subtitle of this site from "Civil War History" to "Civil War. Reconstruction. Reunion." No, I have not run out of things to say about the Civil War...and I do not suspect that I ever will. But, there are a few developments underway that suggest Cosmic America should cast a wider net.

For one, I signed on to teach a class in Reconstruction history at UC Riverside during the winter 2013 term. This of course means that I will be talking a lot about it here. I will more than likely set up a page including the course syllabus and all the primary documents. But that is not happening for a while yet.

Also, I talk about reunion all the time anyway, so I believe the subtitle should reflect the content of the site - wouldn't you agree?

I am looking forward to the Reconstruction course - getting back in the classroom is exciting indeed, especially since I will be dealing with one of the most controversial eras in American History. To my mind, the period represented an uncertain landscape for those who lived through it. So many of the the websites and forums I run across dwell on retrospectively examining the successes and failures of the period - primarily the failures...taking on the Reconstruction period as some sort of "lost moment."  But this approach could be of limited utility. One has much more to gain by accessing the events - success and failures all - as they unfolded. No one in 1865 knew what was about to happen. So I would say it is best not to try and understand their history from our perspective. I trust my students will agree.

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

A Promising New Civil War Blog

Greetings Cosmic Americans!

It may seem somewhat premature to favorably review a blog in its earliest incarnations. But I have a sneaking suspicion that the content will be up to Cosmic America standards.

The blog's title, in all its straight-forward simplicity, is Grand Army Blog: The Veteran In A [Digital] Field. It is authored by Yale Ph.D. candidate Brian Matthew Jordan, who recently published Unholy Sabbath: The Battle of South Mountain in History and Memory, September 14, 1862.

What I gather from Brian's mission statement and first handful of posts, is an innovative addition to the ever-growing collection of Civil War memory studies. His focus is on Union veterans - but he endeavors to reorient Civil War remembrance along a veteran-civilian axis. This blog promises to be reflections on Brian's research and writing of his study, "When Billy Came Marching Home: Union Veterans and Their Unending Civil War."

On veterans, civilians, and Civil War memory, Brian states: The categories fashioned by the historian David Blight to sort competing memories of our fratricidal war – what he called the “emancipationist,” “reconciliationist,” and “white supremacist” visions – were useful in explaining how the national narrative of the Civil War was segregated, but stopped well short of explaining how that same story was, from almost the very beginning, sanitized. The sanitization of the Civil War narrative, much like its segregation, has a troubling history.

While I disagree with Blight's thesis (not Brian's assessment of it), and I find categories of all kinds profoundly problematic, I am nevertheless intrigued by the undertaking of a new categorization of Union veterans. Sanitization of the Civil War narrative would necessarily exclude a number of the maimed veterans who lived to see the end of the war. I am interested to see how he approaches said category - and his veteran-civilian axis.

My questions are numerous - particularity concerning the themes of fluidity/rigidity as veterans once again entered civilian life. Were they indeed cordoned off and kept away from the general public? Those who "shall have borne the battle" as Lincoln said, were certainly discussed at length at monument dedications and other veteran events. Were there intersections in which the maimed and disfigured were accepted in Brian's conception of a sanitized narrative?

I look forward to Brian's work - I am sure I will have plenty to discuss.

Peace,

Keith

The Future of Civil War Era Studies - A Response to Stephen Berry's Top Ten List

Greetings Cosmic Americans!

I recently read an intriguing article in the Journal of the Civil War Era by historian Stephen Berry of the University of Georgia. Berry accounts for the quieting of hotly debated big issues that have dominated Civil War studies for the last several decades. Slavery - we can pretty much agree on that. Where the war was won and lost - well, maybe. The modernity of the South - sure. Self-emancipation - of course, so long as you give at least some credit to the Union army. Confederate internal divisions - yes there were some, but again...the Union army, remember? So, with "many of these old debates quiescent," Berry asks, "where does that leave us; where do we go from here?" Berry then proceeds to offer his top ten list of where we are actually going from here. I will not trouble to list them here - you can read them for yourself.

I will, however, offer a few notes of my own. Berry's list strikes me as only an ever-so-slight adjustment to what Civil War historians have been up to for, well, as long as there have been Civil War historians. If Berry is right, then we are not really going anywhere, not breaking new ground, not keeping up with the times. If anything, we would only be adjusting an existing format to conform to current trends in scholarship. Yes, trends like environmental history and transnationalism will certainly begin to dominate Civil War studies programs. The focus away from microhistory to the larger sweep of events will undoubtedly prevail, for the time being anyway.

And such scholarship is well and good - but as projected, these movements in Civil War Studies reflect the tendency of many scholars to encapsulate themselves within the hallowed halls of academia. Berry's concern with how new studies will fit with the existing tenure system, how they will be funded and received by the NEH and other organizations, and whether or not we are killing the war our fathers built suggests that same old system of Civil War Era studies is merely getting a fresh coat of paint.

But with certainty...and in very short order, Civil War Era studies will no longer be defined by the same old system. I would not imply that the discipline is inexorably sinking and that Berry is simply rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic. But I would say that there have been profound changes in how we read, research, teach, and absorb - even feel, see, and hear Civil War history. And I would also argue that Civil War Era studies is steadily moving away from the confines of the university and in to the hands of an informed public. Berry touches on this - but only with the delicate touch of someone who does not wish to stir things up too much. After all - tenure is quite possibly at stake.

Case in point: number four on the list, "It Is No Longer 'Cute' To Be A Luddite," accents the development of Digital Humanities 2.0. A move beyond the simple storage of information (the 1.0 version) and the necessity of digital skills and technical savvy. Berry notes that the whole system must either "reboot itself or get the boot." As clever as that statement is, Berry's preoccupation with dissertators' technical skills misses the the crux of how digital humanities is entirely restructuring the discourse between teacher, student, and the public. Single-author monographs will not simply be yielding space to Internet collaborations, they will be engaging them. And Internet collaborators will be (and are quickly becoming) a wide cross section of individuals of all stripes and walks of life - many well versed in Civil War history - points Berry fails to note.

There is little "future" in the forum article – albeit innovative points of focus, Berry's top ten list nevertheless appears to be offering conscious constructions to fit the current mold of academic scholarship. Are Civil War scholars in essence sharpening a pencil we already have - remaining content to speak an esoteric language and move about in areas reserved for the academic elite? Scarcity of access is quickly becoming a thing of the past. And as more and more leave the fold to embrace an informed public, traditional Civil War scholarship (in its current incarnation) and its conventional means of production and highly selective dissemination will be of less utility - and indeed...of less relevance.

The Future of Civil War Era Studies? I offer number eleven for Berry's list - it's going viral.

Peace,

Keith

Cosmic America on Facebook

Greetings Cosmic Americans!

So - are social media the future of teaching? Well, maybe not entirely - I find it hard to imagine the classroom...in the traditional sense, ever disappearing in favor of Internet platforms. I will say this however. In terms of the dissemination of resources and searching the historical record, the Internet and its behemoth networking platforms like Facebook and Twitter are not going anywhere any time soon. So at the very least, we teachers should embrace them - and likewise utilize them to their full potential.

In the spirit of getting on board and not rejecting the "nonsense waste of time" that 14-year-olds flock to to get the latest on Justin Bieber, I have been a champion of social media for some time. And in this same spirit, I have created a Facebook "fan" page for Cosmic America. I will be stepping up my game over there - so I invite those of you who like to put in their two cents on the Civil War to join me.

The idea, naturally, is to discuss the various pictures, videos, and articles that I post on the page - and I suppose you can mention Justin Bieber too, if you feel so compelled. I have to admit that I have actually seen his film Never Say Never, and after I managed to get over my hives, I found his performance at Madison Square Garden....interesting. Do what you want with that information - I digress.

Besides the profoundly broad topic of Civil War history and memory, I propose no specific theme for this page - whatever comes up that day (like the picture to the left or this article on the sesquicentennial) will be wide open for comment, whether you love it or hate it or think I am way off base (that happens from time to time), the forum will be open to anyone.

At any rate - I anticipate some good and hopefully even valuable discussion. Civil War students, teachers, buffs, wingnuts...come one come all!

Peace,

Keith

Historians Barbara Fields and James McPherson on Lincoln the Emancipator

Greetings Cosmic Americans!

Well as we know, historians disagree on just about everything. And it's a good thing too - if we didn't - there would only be one book on the Civil War...we would all read it...and that would be it. Not too exciting. The subject of "who freed the slaves" generally stirs up a lively debate - here's what two prominent scholars have to say about it.

Columbia University historian Barbara Fields insists that Lincoln’s dedication to freedom was superficial and never strayed from the confines of war necessity. Relying heavily on the oft-quoted words of Lincoln himself, Fields reminds readers that the president would have eagerly saved the Union “without freeing any slave.”

[caption id="attachment_615" align="alignright" width="110" caption="Barbara J. Fields"][/caption]

Fields attempts to show how Lincoln adopted a strictly limited policy of emancipation only as an attack on the Confederacy’s ability to wage war. A great many bondsmen, including those enslaved in loyal states or those residing in areas already occupied by United States forces, remained enslaved. Further, those laboring deep in the Confederacy, far from liberating Union lines, remained beyond the reach of the proclamation’s power. Fields admits that the Emancipation Proclamation was significant, but rather than illustrating a crucial development with roots in Republican ideology, she asserts that slaves provided the impetus for such a policy through self-emancipation. The slaves themselves forced the issue and convinced Republicans to attack the institution where it existed. “No human alive,” she comments, “could have held back the tide that swept toward freedom.”

[caption id="attachment_620" align="alignleft" width="129" caption="James M. McPerson"][/caption]

Princeton University historian James McPherson answers this challenge by pointing out that Lincoln and the Republican Party were not only committed to thwarting the expansion of slavery into the territories, but also that containment was the “first vital step toward placing it in the course of ultimate extinction.” Well before the outbreak of war, McPherson illustrates, Lincoln made it abundantly clear that a man governing another man was despotism, that the relation of masters and slave was a violation of the principle of equality embedded in the founding documents, and that the slave system undermined the “principles of progress.” Although Lincoln knew he lacked the authority to tamper with slavery where it already existed, he hoped that when the Union became either “all one thing or all the other,” that slavery would have met its demise. McPherson adds a further cautionary note in answer to Fields’s assertion of an inevitable “sweeping tide.” Her conclusions depend on a Union victory – a victory hardly foreordained in 1861.

Now you know I want your opinion - so sound off!

Peace,

Keith

The Civil War Moment

Greetings Cosmic Americans!

Way back when I was an undergraduate at UCLA, my Civil War professor - Joan Waugh - spoke a lot about what she called the Civil War moment.

The moment, she described, was the exact instant when you made a personal connection with the war - when the whole thing became clear to you...what it was all about - the cost, the consequences, etc.

In all honesty, I didn't think much of it. It all sounded pretty weird to me...I mean - I have a long list of ancestors who fought in the war, I had been to a number of battlefields...and nothing - no "moment." it was all just history. Fascinating yes, but no connection.

And then it happened. I was conducting research for my masters thesis my first year at UVA at the old special collections department in the Alderman library (before they built the fancy schmancy new one) and I came across a collection of Civil War letters buried in a long-forgotten collection of family papers. They didn't really have much bearing on my work but I thought they were interesting so i read them anyway.

I won't get in to too much detail, but I will say that they were letters written by a Confederate cavalry officer to his wife in Virginia.. He talked about the usual stuff - how much he missed seeing her, their children, the general goings on at their farm, and mundane stories of life in the military. He wrote his wife often and I got to know him and his family.

And then on September 17th, 1862, the letters stopped. I looked through the files thinking that I had missed something...somewhere. But what I found instead was a bundle of condolence letters from the soldier's comrades - expressing their sorrow for the loss of their friend, and hoping that his widow would make it through her grief.

The soldier had been killed leading a cavalry charge at Antietam - I had never heard of him before I discovered his letters, and I certainly did not agree with the cause for which he fought. But it occurred to me that soldiers and events in this war were more than paintings hung on museum walls...or distant stories long past. They were people. People with hopes and aspirations and plans for the future. People with families who missed them and mourned their loss. People not so unlike myself.

This was my Civil War moment - what was yours?

Peace,

Keith

Much Ado About Revisionist History

Greetings Cosmic Americans!

As you must surely know by now (as I mention this often), I spend a lot of time scouring the Internet for people discussing the Civil War. Youtube and Twitter are of course my favorite virtual forums - they never disappoint.

I have noticed something that, as a historian, I find really really really interesting. The word "revision" seems to carry a negative connotation. And individuals all over the place hold the so-called practitioners of "revisionist history" with the greatest contempt.

Now this comes from both ends of the political spectrum. Those who finger point and accuse don't necessarily fall into any easily defined category.

But the way I understand things, people who are screaming about revisionism are kinda missing the point. The words "revision" and "revisionist" have simply been reduced to a code for information that disgruntled would-be historians disagree with. (Bitter??? Table for one).

Here's the deal my angry f-bomb dropping friends. Revision is what historians do (and lots of others, too). If we didn't revise, there would be one book on the Civil War. We would all read it, and that would be it.

Oh sure - historians can write with a bias, and what they write can certainly be a reflection of the times in which they live. But is this by definition a bad thing or something that we simply must come to terms with and be aware of? What we learn about history and historians can tell us a lot about ourselves as interpreters of the past. If you really want to impress your friends at parties - get in to historiography. Now that's some revision we can talk about. Are there noticeable differences in books written before and after the Vietnam era (to use one sorta obvious example)? You betcha.

But all of that aside, I believe that revision is the essential ingredient to reconstructing the past. New evidence always surfaces somewhere, differing analysis produces thoughtful conversations, new insights lead us to reconsider something we may have thought we knew...but didn't.

In other words - you can get all bent out of shape if someone challenges your precious beliefs. But instead of dismissing that person as a "revisionist" in derogatory fashion, why not just have a look at what they are saying, weigh the arguments in terms of credibility, see if their evidence holds water. Do you really want to learn anything - or do you just want to hold fast to what could very well be long outdated?

I am open to critique...so fire away.

Peace,
Keith

Winfield Scott, the Anaconda Plan, and the Fall of New Orleans

Greetings Cosmic Americans!

Well, after a string of reshedulings and technical difficulties, Cosmic America's Civil War finally made it on the air - two days late!

It was a good episode too, so if you haven't watched it yet - check it out by clicking HERE.

I'll give you a little on Winfield "Old Fuss and Feathers" Scott (I love Civil War era nicknames), his foresight about the potential course of the war, his subsequent Anaconda Plan - and the plan in action....the fall of New Orleans in April 1862.

It's important to note, friends, that while 1862 is considered by many to be the year of Confederate ascendancy, they were sucking pretty hard in the western theater. All the good stuff was happening in the east. This fact really lends itself to the idea that the eastern theater was the principle theater of the war.

Now I know that some of you will argue with me on this. But remember, I read history forward. People during the war looked east a lot more than they looked west.

Still, the fall of New Orleans was a hard blow for the rebs. It was the biggest city in the South with more than 100,000 citizens and it was a key harbor at the mouth of the Mississippi River. Tune in to the show and find out all about it.

Peace,
Keith

PS - for a great book on Winfield Scott's career check out Allan Peskin, Winfield Scott and Profession of Arms

Port Royal - A Rehearsal for Reconstruction

Greetings Cosmic Americans!

Last night, Live and Unfiltered featured the Port Royal Experiment - what some scholars have called a "rehearsal for Reconstruction." And what a rehearsal it was! To check out last night's episode, click HERE.

I think wartime Reconstruction is often glossed over in Civil War classes (as is the big event during 1865-1877) but that's just me. Fans of my show will be happy to know that I plan on covering Reconstruction thoroughly. Why?? Becuase it's important dammit!

And if you don't believe me - just check any newspaper from the period. Reconstruction was on people's minds.

Now...since you have watched the Port Royal episode (or are about to), those of you paying attention probably noticed that I mentioned a couple of books. Read them - you'll be better off for it.

Rehearsal for Reconstruction: The Port Royal Experiment by Willie Lee Rose

Roll Jordan Roll: The World the Slaves Made by Eugene D. Genovese

Peace,
Keith

Special Halloween episode - The Union is Dissolved! (just in case you missed it)

Greetings Cosmic Americans!

Thanks to all who watch Sunday's episode of The Civil War: Live and Unfiltered! It was a fun way to start the Halloween festivities. Check it out if you missed it - and be sure to watch from the beginning...you get about a minute of music before the horror begins :)

This week's schedule is in the books, so be sure to tune in tonight, Thursday, and Sunday at 8PM PST by clicking HERE.

Tonight the shooting finally starts - we will discuss the First Battle of Bull Run (or...for the rebs in the crowd, First Manassas).

See you then-
Peace,
Keith

Reconciliation at Grant's Tomb

Greetings Cosmic Americans!

Wrap your head around this - Ulysses S. Grant shaking hands with that rebel Robert E. Lee enshrined forever at his own tomb!!

And why not? The whole point of the war was to bring the country back together - why not show a little spirit of reconciliation? After all, Grant's campaign slogan (or rather, the Republican Party's slogan) for the election of 1868 was "Let Us Have Peace." So there you have it...peace.

But remember, Union veterans had a very clear vision of what peace and reconciliation would look like. Don't forget that. When Americans would learn the history of their greatest conflict, former Union soldiers were determined that they would learn what the war had been about. The Confederacy had fought to destroy the nation and perpetuate the institution of slavery. Period.

Sure, they would say, let us have peace...let us promote reconciliation. But don't forget what happened. Even Grant himself wrote in his memoirs: "I felt like anything rather than rejoicing at the downfall of a foe who had fought so long and valiantly, and had suffered so much for a cause, though that cause was, I believe, one of the worst for which a people ever fought, and one for which there was the least excuse."

(Let Us Have) Peace,
Keith

Confederate Imagery in the 21st Century - Racism? Heritage? Just Plain Fun?

Greetings Cosmic Americans!

Well, I am once again happy to sing the praises of Twitter. This wonderful platform has allowed the reach of Cosmic America to extend all over the world - and people are talking. They want to know about the US Civil War...and as it turns out, the war's legacy too.

From the small island of Guernsey, situated smack in the middle of the English Channel, Matt (a computer graphics artist) was wondering about the problematic nature of Confederate imagery in a modern age. Is this simply a harmless nod to heritage, or does Confederate symbolism evoke America's troubling racist past?

Addressing this topic always stirs controversy - which is good I suppose. It gives me something to argue about...and I like to argue.

The Confederate Battle Flag (aka, the St. Andrews Cross) and other Confederate symbols can be used for many reasons, not all of them racist. Some folks like to fly it as a way to say "up yours" to the man. It is a symbol of rebellion, which means if you are trying to rebel against something - your school, your government, your parents, whatever...this could be for you.

It can even be used in a sort of "tongue and cheek" fashion. You know...good natured fun combined with regional pride just letting Yankees know that the good ole boys and girls down South have figured out how to let the colors fly - on bumper stickers t-shirts, and bikinis.

Others belong to the "heritage not hate" crowd. These folks insist that their ancestors who fought under this banner were fighting for their rights and protection of their homeland - an American virtue that should be applauded. They despise the Confederacy being compared to the Third Reich, and rightfully so. Confederates were not Nazis.

But here is the problem. It is hard to separate the Rebel flag from other groups. A-holes like the KKK and Nazi skinheads who drag it out whenever they want to spew hatred and racism aren't doing the heritage not hate group any favors.

But there is another problem - one that is little more complex than the simple expression of base racism. The Confederate soldiers, like it or not, were fighting for a country conceived on the notion of racial superiority. The Confederate cause was founded to perpetuate the institution of slavery. Period. This whole "state rights" thing was really a post war creation.

Now, I know that there are lots of people out there who will disagree with me, but I have discussed this at length on this blog and I believe the evidence speaks for itself. so I will not go in to that right this second.

Confederate imagery is profoundly offensive to a great number of people, despite the context in which it is used. And thus I say to those of you who insist that it is a harmless symbol denoting regional pride - proceed with caution.

I highly recommend a book by John Coski called The Confederate Battle Flag: America's Most Embattled Emblem. He examines the multiple uses of this flag from the Lost Cause period through massive resistance in the 1950s to modern state flag controversies. If you have any further inquiries, this book should set you straight.

Peace,
Keith

Shelby Foote - Historian?

Well, not really.

Now friends, before you let me have it for saying such a thing about America's favorite storyteller, let me just make my case.

I have read nearly everything that Mr. Foote has written. His novels are delightful and well written, particularly Shiloh. And his so-called history, The Civil War: A Narrative is equally well executed. But that's just it - as the title suggests, The Civil War is a narrative - fine. But in terms of rigorous primary research and pointed analysis his magnum opus is wanting.

If anything, The Civil War represents a synthesis of the secondary materials that Foote undoubtedly collected in his study over the years. What is really troubling about this work is his somewhat casual use of the contemporary (of the Civil War era) speaking voice. It seems that much of the primary evidence used to narrate the war existed only in the mind of Foote himself.

So, when he described the carnage of Cold Harbor, to use a very famous example, by quoting a young diarist who wrote his last words on the battlefield: "I am killed," he simply duped his readers. I sure wish that that diary really existed - I could not imagine a more evocative entry in the diary of a mortally wounded soldier on the battlefield than this. But the diary has never surfaced.

Shelby Foote was a wonderful novelist. And his folksy wisdom added charm to Ken Burns's 1990 documentary, The Civil War. You know, I would have loved to have met him on a battlefield to hear him speak in all his anecdotal glory. I am not sure I would have believed anything he said as he stood, telling tales, smoking his pipe and drawing a circle in the dirt with his foot. I would have had a good time though. I can't think of a better storyteller.

Rest in peace, Shelby.

Keith

Was The Battle of Gettysburg the Turning Point of the Civil War?

Greetings Cosmic Americans!

Well, I got an email today from a Live and Unfiltered fan (student - Mike B.) asking me to clarify something I said about the Battle of Gettysburg.

I mentioned something along the lines of "Gettysburg is not as important as you might think it is." Thanks for the note, Mike - lets see if I can clear things up a bit.

I should have pointed out that I was talking about Gettysburg as the turning point of the war and I should have been more specific by stating that many Americans today think about the battle differently than the people in 1863. I love live streaming video - no edits and at this point it is not interactive. What are ya gonna do? Just have to go with it and clarify later if necessary :)

Analyzing history from the vantage point of the present (as I have warned people not to do), one could surmise that the battle was indeed the turning point. The Confederates never again could claim a decisive victory along the lines of Manassas or Fredericksburg. But the Union victory here was not by any means the stepping off point to guaranteed victory.

The participants and citizens of the respective countries certainly didn't think so. Just read a newspaper from the period. The Confederates, with Lee at the helm the Army of Northern Virginia, still firmly believed that victory was within their grasp. Gettysburg or no. The Union Army was bogged down in Virginia, the Union population at home was growing increasingly weary of the war, and even Abraham Lincoln thought he was going to lose the election of 1864 and perhaps the war along with it.

Sure as shit - the letters home from the Confederate Army indicated that morale was up. I have read them myself...tons of these letters are housed at the Museum of the Confederacy in Richmond. Go there yourself and check them out if you don't believe me.

So all this "High Tide of the Confederacy" stuff is a postwar creation. Sure, the citizens of the North and South thought the battle was important alright, but perhaps for different reasons than many Americans do today.

So if you have any questions you can always shoot me an email at cosmic_america@yahoo.com
I promise to answer all.

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

James "shoulda won in Pennsylvania" Longstreet - oy.

Greetings Cosmic Americans!

So last night I was checking out Youtube videos featuring the various reenactments of the Battle of Gettysburg (don't judge). My favorite part of these vids is the comments section. I love reading the comments from people - mostly Civil War buffs - from all over the world.

A lot of these comments are authored by knot heads, pure and simple. You know - the unreconstructed types screaming and yelling about how we have all been duped by the liberal intelligentsia to believe that the Confederacy was not right. I am kinda glad that these guys don't know where I live - but I have to admit - I get a kick out of reading them...and maybe even stirring the pot a little with my own two cents.

I noticed something else last night that has reinforced my belief in the power of popular culture. It seems that Confederate general James Longstreet is still doing mighty fine. As you probably know, Longstreet toppled from the Confederate pantheon after the war because he dared criticize Robert E. Lee in print. Bad move, hombre. Other former Rebels like Jubal Early made sure to remind the world that you blew it wholesale at Gettysburg and cost the CSA the war (he didn't really - but we can talk about that later).

But it looks like the Shaara novel Killer Angels and the film Gettysburg have revived the spirit and popularity of Old Pete. In short, here's what he wanted to do in Pennsylvania. After a CS victory on July 1, he wanted to move around to the right of the Union army and get between it and Washington City - forcing an engagement on ground of his choosing, insuring a tactical advantage.

Now because of this book and film, a whole lot of folks think that this move would have sealed the deal for Confederate victory and independence. YIKES - not so fast!

We have no way of knowing what would of happened had the Confederate Army disengaged after an early victory at Gettysburg (except that they would probably have lost momentum and been demoralized). So let's just stop with the "if Lee had listened to Longstreet the CSA would have won" nonsense. Why not focus on what really happened, not what might have. The truth is, Longstreet sulked, pouted, and dragged his ass around Gettysburg on July 2, which caused a big problem in terms of Lee's battle plan. Yep, Longstreet showed up late (by several hours) to the party and things didn't go so well for the Army of Northern Virginia.

Now this doesn't mean Confederate defeat was Longstreet's fault like his enemies would have you believe. I'm just sayin'...he wasn't the wise modern soldier who had the war all figured out like these elements of popular culture depict him. Hey - at least he got a statue out of the deal...which looks suspiciously like Tom Berenger. Hmmmmmmmm......

Peace,
Keith

Who Freed the Slaves?

Greetings Cosmic Americans!

So - on to the matter at hand. Who freed the slaves? Why that's simple right? It was Abraham Lincoln, the great emancipator.....right? I mean....right?

Not so fast amigos. As usual, thing can get a little more complicated when you look a little closer at the historical record. Oh sure, Lincoln issued the Emancipation Proclamation all right, which technically freed all slaves who were (as of January 1, 1863) living in states currently in rebellion. (NOTE: The Emancipation Proclamation did not apply to slaves in the border states - not to mention...the Rebs were not exactly willing to comply with the proclamation, either). As historians like James McPherson note, the Proclamation was a crucial step in a series of actions taken against the institution. But is there more to the story?

Historians like Barbara Fields and Ira Berlin think so. They talk a lot about what they refer to as "self emancipation." Yep - it's exactly what it sounds like. Slaves, not just sitting around waiting to be freed by northern politicians, simply left. That's it. They saw an opportunity and took it. Seeking freedom for themselves, these men and women walked away from the farms and plantations were they had been held in bondage and fled to Union lines. Many of them ended up in contraband camps (more on these later) and thousands would eventually join Union army USCT Units - all black (led by white officers) regiments of fighting men (more on these guys later too).

Well, I am not really one for either/or questions. Of course there is validity to both bottom up and top down analyses of emancipation. Slaves (now former slaves) took action, and, while the Emancipation Proclamation did not really free anyone on day one, it certainly changed the meaning and direction of the war.

But here's some food for thought for a Saturday morning. What about the United States Army? Don't they get any credit? Robert Gould Shaw, immortalized by the film Glory, said it best when he noted in 1863 (insert affected Boston accent here) after hearing of the Proclamation, that it was all well and good but it really made little difference. Writing his mother - "For my part I can't see what practical good it can do now. Wherever our army has been, there remain no slaves, and the proclamation won't free them where we don't go."

So, while presidential proclamations and self emancipation were significant aspects of the demise of slavery in the South, without the army...nada. Remember - the slaves held in places that saw no pronounced military presence (like Alabama and Texas) remained slaves until the end of the war.

So with that I will sign off until Monday - Please leave a comment whether you agree with me or not. I promise to be nice :)

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