Tuesday, June 24, 2014

"In an ongoing revisionist history effort, Southern schools and churches still pretend the war wasn't about slavery"

From Salon.com:
The Southern version of history also prevailed for decades at Civil War battle sites, thanks to the fact that Congress appropriated money for the National Park Service, and Southerners in Congress had their hands on the purse strings. It wasn’t until the 1990s that the Park Service—under pressure from the academic community and a few members of Congress—made it a priority to revamp its exhibits to “interpret [the Civil War] and the causes of the war based on current scholarship,” said Dwight Pitcaithley, a professor of history at New Mexico State University who was chief historian of the Park Service from 1995 to 2005. In December 2008, Pitcaithley gave a talk to public school educators in Mississippi, and used as part of his presentation this quote from the Mississippi Declaration of Secession: “Our cause is thoroughly identified with the institution of slavery, the greatest material interest of the world.” That sentence is now prominently displayed on the wall of the National Park Service visitors’ center in Corinth, Mississippi, near the site of the battle of Shiloh. Pitcaithley took a picture of the display and used it in his presentation. After his talk, he was chatting with a thirty-four-year-old black school principal who had grown up in Mississippi, attended its public schools, and received his university education there. “I asked him if he’d ever seen that [quote] and he said no—he’d never even heard of that.”
Read the full article here

Monday, June 09, 2014

Dressing up like a rebel is not enough. You need to do your homework.

What’s with Confederate reenactors and the matter-of-fact denial of slavery’s central role in bringing about the American Civil War? Not a month goes by, it seems, without a news item quoting a reenactor expounding along those lines. Incredibly, they don’t settle for simply diminishing the role of slavery, as some apologists are wont to do. No, frequently they’ll proclaim that the war had nothing to do with slavery whatsoever.

It’s astonishing, and sad, that 150 years after the war, with all of the resources at our disposal, all of the painstakingly researched histories of that era, all of the primary source material that is increasingly being digitized and made accessible, we still have people putting forth this long-discredited, neo-Confederate fantasy.

Like the modern day holocaust denier, one must make a determined and willful effort to ignore or discount a great mountain of evidence to arrive at such a misguided conclusion. Even blinders allow a horse to see what’s in front of it, but the slavery-as-cause denier rejects even that.
It’s one thing to tell a reporter, as this reenactor did in Florida recently, "If people know their history, the Civil War has nothing to do with slavery." Discriminating readers can dismiss this nonsense as effortlessly as we dismiss “birthers.” But taking this alternate history into a classroom should not be so easily dismissed. It is an affront to education, and should be refuted.

Most recently I encountered an article about a Confederate reenactor who gave a brief “lecture” to a class of 8th graders in a Santa Clara, California middle school. I knew instinctively as soon as I saw the photo of the gray-clad rebel in a classroom that the article would put forth the great Lost Cause lie. And sure enough, it did.

Said the reenactor: “Most kids say the reason the Civil War happened was because of slavery, and I tell them it wasn’t. The war was about 11 states that wanted to leave the union, and it was about the attack on Fort Sumter.”

Never mind that the lawful governments of two of those states did not vote to leave the union. Never mind that the reason the other slave states wanted to leave the Union was that they saw it as the only way to preserve and perpetuate slavery.

How do we know this? We know this because the secessionists themselves told us that.

Confederates of the day made no bones about this. They were forthright and unabashed about their motivations. Strange then, that people who today dress up like pretend Confederates have come up with an interpretation contrary to that of the secessionists themselves.

I defy any one of them to sit down and read Charles Dew’s, Apostles of Disunion. The first states to secede sent ambassadors to the other slave states to try to convince them to secede. Here we have Southerners speaking to each other in their own words. Their unmistakable message is that the only “state right” under consideration was the right to maintain and perpetuate slavery.

Professor David W. Blight, in his essay, “One Rebel State Never Surrendered: Denial — Confederates’ Own Words Condemn Their Cause,” wrote:
“The best way to understand why secession and war came in 1860-61 is to look at what white Southerners themselves said they were doing. How did the leaders of secession explain the origins of the war?
South Carolina's "Declaration of Causes" justifying secession included the claim that the Republican Party would "take possession of the government the South shall be excluded from the common territory and a war must be waged against slavery until it shall cease throughout the United States."
Texas secessionists proclaimed their greatest fear in the crisis as "the abolition of slavery" and "the recognition of political equality between the white and negro races."

In Mississippi, secessionist delegates unanimously announced that their "position is thoroughly identified with the institution of slavery." The Mississippians declared that they "must either submit to degradation and the loss of property worth four billions of money, or we must secede from the Union."

Georgians agreed, accusing "abolitionists and their allies in the Northern states" of "efforts to subvert our institutions, and to incite insurrection and servile war among us."
Blight also quoted John Mosby, the legendary “Gray Ghost,” who said after the war, “"I always understood that we went to war on account of the thing we quarreled with the North about. I never heard of any other cause of quarrel than slavery."

That pretty well sums it up.

Wednesday, May 28, 2014

Five best books on the Steamboat Sultana, and America's greatest maritime disaster

Gene Salecker at Vicksburg's Sultana mural
My wife and I visited Vicksburg last month for the annual meeting of the Association of Sultana Descendants and Friends. Next year we’ll meet in Marion, Arkansas for the 150th anniversary of the Sultana disaster. 

http://www.barnesandnoble.com/w/disaster-on-the-mississippi-gene-eric-salecker/1000446000?ean=9781557507396It was a great pleasure to finally meet two authors who’ve written important works on the subject. Gene Salecker wrote what most consider the definitive study in, Disaster on the Mississippi, the Sultana Explosion, April 27, 1865. Gene was our guide for the weekend, taking us to the site of Camp Fisk, where former Union POWs from Cahaba and Andersonville, Midwesterners, were processed for parole. Much of the area where Camp Fisk was situated remains undeveloped and bucolic. Once paroled, the soldiers were taken by train to the Vicksburg depot, from whence they hiked to the wharf and boarded steamboats for the trip home. The floodwall at Vicksburg boasts 32 murals depicting scenes from the town’s history, including the fateful boarding of over 2,000 Union soldiers onto the Sultana.

http://www.barnesandnoble.com/w/sultana-alan-huffman/1103372159?ean=9780061470561It was also a treat to meet author Alan Huffman (with Anne, at right), whose book, Sultana: Surviving the Civil War, Prison,and the Worst Maritime Disaster in American History, features Anne’s ancestor, Romulus Tolbert of the 8th Indiana Cavalry. In a bit of geographical schizophrenia, Alan splits time between his exceedingly quiet and lovingly restored old home in rural Mississippi, and an apartment in New York City. Alan has written some intriguing books on a broad array of subjects, which you can read about here

http://bluegraymagazine.com/store/page2.htmlhttp://www.barnesandnoble.com/w/the-sultana-tragedy-jerry-potter/1110828040?ean=9780882898612Three other books round out the respectable Sultana bookshelf. First, Jerry Potter’s outstanding, The Sultana Tragedy: America’s Greatest Maritime Disaster (Jerry also wrote the main article in "Blue and Gray" magazine’s Sultana issue –August 1990, vol. vii, issue 6). William O. Bryant’s contribution, from the University of Alabama Press, is Cahaba Prison and the Sultana Disaster, a fine, fast-moving, and well-documented narrative. And finally, an all-important collection of first-person accounts by survivors – recently reprinted in an attractive edition by the University of Tennessee Press in their “Voices of the Civil War” series – Loss of the Sultana and Reminiscences of Survivors, by Chester D. Berry.

http://www.barnesandnoble.com/w/cahaba-prison-and-the-sultana-disaster-william-o-bryant/1100928352?ean=9780817311339http://www.barnesandnoble.com/w/loss-of-the-sultana-and-reminiscences-of-survivors-chester-d-berry/1101069803?ean=9781572333727There are a couple of lesser books on the subject, including the flawed Transport to Disaster, by James W. Elliott and, if I’m not mistaken, some historical fiction.

More urgently, there is still 7 days to go in the Kickstarter campaign to fund a Sultana documentary. Frodo’s friend Samwise (Sean Astin) has signed on as Executive Producer. Go here to see a little taste of what the documentarians are cooking up. 

Monday, May 12, 2014

"I was always careful after that about joking with Johnnies"

Recent spasms of old-school racism – L.A. Clippers owner Donald Sterling’s bizarre recordings, and the musings of freeloading anarchist Cliven Bundy – have put the subject of racism back in the news on a more or less national scale. It lesser ways, racism is in the news every day, but is probably not something a lot of Americans have cause to spend time thinking about.

Bundy put forth a familiar version of the modern “slaves through dependency” meme, but enlivened it with some choice neo-Confederate sentiments by suggesting  that slave days were happy days, and that picking cotton gave black people a sense of purpose. He said, “And because they were basically on government subsidy, so now what do they do? They abort their young children, they put their young men in jail, because they never learned how to pick cotton. And I’ve often wondered, are they better off as slaves, picking cotton and having a family life and doing things, or are they better off under government subsidy? They didn’t get no more freedom. They got less freedom.”

Reading that, one can’t help but think of the famous quote attributed to Abraham Lincoln, “Whenever I hear any one arguing for slavery I feel a strong impulse to see it tried on him personally”  (The Collected Works of Abraham Lincoln edited by Roy P. Basler, Volume VIII, "Speech to One Hundred Fortieth Indiana Regiment" (March 17, 1865), p. 361).

Coincidentally, when the Bundy and Sterling brouhahas broke out, I was reading an old Civil War memoir by a Wisconsin soldier which addressed the treatment of slaves in the South. It’s strange and disquieting that as a society, we’re rebutting the same arguments and same mythologies that people were rebutting 150 years ago. It seems like it should be ancient history, but it's not.

Melvin Grigsby’s memoir, The Smoked Yank, was published in 1888. Grigsby, a member of the 2nd Wisconsin Cavalry, spent the early part of the war mostly in Arkansas and Mississippi. He was captured by guerillas outside of Vicksburg and was transported to Castle Morgan, the prison at Cahaba, Alabama. Eventually he was transferred to Andersonville prison in Georgia, and later to Florence, South Carolina. He made a number of escape attempts, finally succeeding on the last and made his way back home. 

Grigsby and his comrades disdained slavery, and likewise disdained the early-war policy of protecting the property of slaveowners in areas where the Union army held sway. While stationed at Helena, Arkansas, Grigsby and some buddies took emancipation into their own hands. Of that time, he wrote: 
Helena is in the cotton belt. There were thousands of negroes on the cotton plantations. The government was at that time trying to save the Union and slavery too. The negroes came into Helena by hundreds. Their masters would follow them in and get permits to take them back. The privates, many of us were not in accord with the Government on the negro question. We used to follow the masters when they started away with their slaves, release the slaves and convince the masters that it would be best to keep away from camp. 

On one occasion, Carr and I saw a man leave town with a lot of his negroes who had run away. We followed him out about ten miles and then stopped him. We sent the negroes back to town, took the master's horse, and told him to stay out of Helena. Carr asked me to ride back with the negroes, as they were afraid other slave-owners would arrest them, while he would conceal himself and see if the enraged master would attempt to follow us into camp. 

Before I got back to town, Carr overtook me leading another captured horse. He absolutely refused to answer any questions, and, fearing that the man had started to follow us back, and that Carr had killed him, I was willing that silence should be maintained. A few weeks after, I saw this slave-owner in town. He wasn't trying to take out negroes any more. I pointed him out to Carr, who then told me what had happened before. He saw the man coming on a horse, waylaid him, took him into the woods and handcuffed his hands around a tall tree and left him there. Carr had found the handcuffs on a plantation where they had been used in disciplining negroes, and he carried them in his saddle-bags as a curiosity ; said he left the man near the traveled road so that there would be no question about his being released. 

All that summer we carried on a warfare of that kind against what we believed to be the mistaken policy of the government. It had a bad effect on the soldiers.

Grigsby, as I mentioned, would have taken issue with Rancher Bundy’s notions of happy days on the old plantation. On that subject, he wrote: 

On that plantation I used to read the records kept by the overseer. It seems that every overseer of a large plantation kept a daily record. That record showed that there were negroes whipped, bucked, and gagged, and otherwise punished every day. Every negro who came from the field with less than his stint of cotton, received so many lashes. I saw there the same kind of instruments of torture that I afterward saw in Andersonville. One machine was rigged for stretching negroes over a large roller, so that the lash could be applied to the bare skin. If anyone believes that the cruelties practiced on slaves were exaggerated in Uncle Tom's Cabin, let him hunt up and read one of those plantation records.

Finally, I want to share a passage in which Grigsby has some fun at a slaveowner’s expense, in a section he entitled “Joking with Johnnies.” He makes many sarcastic references to “southern chivalry.” In this instance, Grigsby was being transported to prison, and during one stop along the way, the prisoners were guarded in a slave hut. I have edited out the “N-word,” because that’s the way I was raised.
We witnessed another illustration of southern chivalry at the same town. We were guarded in a negro quarter or hut. Our supper was brought in by a good-looking mulatto girl. The owner of the place, the girl's master, came in while we were eating, and seemed desirous of arguing with us the questions that divided the North and South.

"You uns," said he, "think a [black] just as good as a white man, don't you?"

"Yes, in some respects," we said.

"Now, I suppose you would just as soon marry a [black] wench as to marry a white woman, wouldn't you?"

Thinking the old gentleman would take a joke, I said to him:

“I wouldn't like to marry any [black] wench that I have seen around here, for fear I would have some of you rebels for a daddy-in-law."

As I spoke, I looked from him to the mulatto girl, standing near. Whoopee! How the old man did rave! He stormed and swore and finally started for the house saying, he wouldn't stand such an insult from no damned Yankee. He meant business, too, for he soon came back with a shot gun, which he would doubtless have fired into us, had not Boatwright stood in the door, and, partly by the influence of his drawn revolver and partly by persuasion, appeased the old man's wrath. I was always careful after that about joking with Johnnies.

Sunday, May 11, 2014

150 Years Ago -- reaching the tipping point

Already by May 11, 1864, those of us looking back in hindsight can see the fortunes of war tipping inexorably toward Union arms. General Grant, undaunted by the body blows inflicted on him by Robert E. Lee in the Wilderness, was nearly a week into the unremitting slaughter of Spotsylvania. On this one day, 150 years ago, Grant assured his superiors in Washington that he intended "to fight it out on this line if it takes all summer" (take a look at Grant's May 11 letter at Brooks Simpson's Crossroads blog) and the vaunted Confederate Cavalry chief J.E.B. Stuart was killed by Union cavalry with Richmond at his back.

Photo above:  The J.E.B. Stuart monument at Yellow Tavern. From the NPS driving tour: "Confederate artillery near this location goaded Custer into a second attack at 4 p.m. The Federal charge broke through Lomax's line (behind you, as you face the monument), but was turned back by Company K of the First Virginia Cavalry. The action drew J.E.B. Stuart into the fighting, where he received his fatal wound. The monument marks the approximate spot where Stuart was shot. It is now under the care and protection of the United Daughters of the Confederacy." 

Sunday, May 04, 2014

Hunley finally ready to reveal itself

But within a few months, conservators and archaeologists expect to get their first look at the sub's iron hull - and it may hold clues that finally reveal why the Hunley sank off Charleston 150 years ago.