Decoration Day

I was going to write a longer post about the origins of Memorial Day, but I have no right to do so when David Blight does it instead:

The largest of these events, forgotten until I had some extraordinary luck in an archive at Harvard, took place on May 1, 1865. During the final year of the war, the Confederates had converted the city’s Washington Race Course and Jockey Club into an outdoor prison. Union captives were kept in horrible conditions in the interior of the track; at least 257 died of disease and were hastily buried in a mass grave behind the grandstand.

After the Confederate evacuation of Charleston black workmen went to the site, reburied the Union dead properly, and built a high fence around the cemetery. They whitewashed the fence and built an archway over an entrance on which they inscribed the words, “Martyrs of the Race Course.”
The symbolic power of this Low Country planter aristocracy’s bastion was not lost on the freedpeople, who then, in cooperation with white missionaries and teachers, staged a parade of 10,000 on the track. A New York Tribune correspondent witnessed the event, describing “a procession of friends and mourners as South Carolina and the United States never saw before.”

The procession was led by 3,000 black schoolchildren carrying armloads of roses and singing the Union marching song “John Brown’s Body.” Several hundred black women followed with baskets of flowers, wreaths and crosses. Then came black men marching in cadence, followed by contingents of Union infantrymen. Within the cemetery enclosure a black children’s choir sang “We’ll Rally Around the Flag,” the “Star-Spangled Banner” and spirituals before a series of black ministers read from the Bible.

After the dedication the crowd dispersed into the infield and did what many of us do on Memorial Day: enjoyed picnics, listened to speeches and watched soldiers drill. Among the full brigade of Union infantrymen participating were the famous 54th Massachusetts and the 34th and 104th United States Colored Troops, who performed a special double-columned march around the gravesite.

The war was over, and Memorial Day had been founded by African-Americans in a ritual of remembrance and consecration. The war, they had boldly announced, had been about the triumph of their emancipation over a slaveholders’ republic. They were themselves the true patriots.


Despite the size and some newspaper coverage of the event, its memory was suppressed by white Charlestonians in favor of their own version of the day. From 1876 on, after white Democrats took back control of South Carolina politics and the Lost Cause defined public memory and race relations, the day’s racecourse origin vanished.

I will only say to you that rather than think of this holiday as a general "remember the soldiers" day, recall the valiant soldiers of the Union in the Civil War be they white or black and whether they fought to save the Union or to end the institution of slavery.

And if you feel like waving the bloody shirt a bit today, well, who could blame you. 

Historical Image of the Day

"Emancipation," by Thomas Nast, 1865

Civil War and Film

Kevin Levin is less than optimistic about the upcoming Ridley and Tony Scott film version of Gettysburg.

Will this movie really highlight what was a “visceral, terrifying, and deeply personal experience?”  Wasn’t Ted Turner’s Gettysburg an example of just such a movie or is the difference here that the special effects will set the Scott production apart?  I guess in the end I have trouble believing that any Civil War movie can strip away “the romanticized veneer of the Civil War” entirely.  Our memory of Gettysburg is wrapped up in all kinds of romantic memes from “Brother v. Brother” to “A Battle that Decided the Fate of a Nation.”  We don’t have a Civil War apart from our romantic notions that define its continued significance and meaning.

In a sense we have come a long way in our memory of the Civil War. We now center African-Americans in the experience. Historians almost all call slavery the primary reason for the war. Yet somehow this has not created space for new tales of the War to be told on screen. With the arguable exception of Glory, which still managed to tell a tale of heroic soldiers fighting for what they believed in, our Civil War films have not progressed too much in the last half century. Filmmakers are still as wary of offending Southerners as they were in 1926, when Buster Keaton switched the story of The General from a Union to a Confederate officer in order to appease southern sensibilities. The films aren't as openly racist as Birth of a Nation or even Shenandoah, but they tend to still tell tales of two armies fighting for their beliefs without judgment of their ideology. The message is the glory and valor of putting up a strong fight rather than treason in defense of slavery.

This version of Gettysburg is going to have 3 elements:

1. Gritty war scenes.
2. Manhood defined through war
3. Ideological vacuity

Can we not tell stories that move beyond 19th century battle reunions? I guess not, even when employing our most famous directors.

Historical Image of the Day

The ruins of Charleston, South Carolina, epicenter of treason in defense of slavery, 1865

Confederate Murderers in Texas

Good bit on how murderous and violent pro-Confederates were to Texas Unionists, including the wanton slaughter of Germans trying to escape Texas into Mexico. I'm half-surprised they allowed Sam Houston  to die peacefully.

Civil War Memory

The Times' Disunion series has created repetitive but, to me, endless interesting comment sections. Over and over again, people debate the causes of the Civil War. Of course, there's no real debate about this among historians--it's slavery, slavery, and slavery. And while that's seeped into much of the population, there's a whole lot of people with a whole lot of money who don't want to believe that. Some companies are taking advantage of this population, as Virginia Heffernan shows in her discussion of mobile apps related to the War. That's fine and all I suppose, even if slavery disappears from their narratives. After all, maybe it's not the companies' fault that a large swath of Americans want their own version of the war that erases slavery. Because it the war isn't about slavery, then it can still be evoked today for conservative ends. Southern Republicans are doing this very thing:

In Georgia 47% of Republicans are content with the Union victory, while 31% wish the South had won. Democrats (58/17) and independents (54/19) are both strongly supportive of the North, making the overall numbers 53/23.

In North Carolina GOP voters are almost evenly divided on the outcome of the war with 35% glad for the North's victory, 33% ruing the South's loss, and 32% taking neither side. Democrats (55/15) and independents (57/14) have similar numbers to Georgia but due to the greater ambivalence of Republicans about the northern victory, overall less than half of Tar Heel voters (48%) are glad the Union won to 21% who wish the Confederacy had.

In Mississippi no group of the electorate seems all that enthused about the North having won. Republicans, by a 38/21 margin, outright wish the South had won. Democrats (39/22) and independents (49/15) side with the North but compared to those voter groups in North Carolina and Georgia they're pretty ambivalent. Overall just 34% of voters in the state are glad the Union prevailed to 27% who wish the rebels had been victorious.

While I don't doubt that some of this is directly related to southern race relations, I'd be curious to see similar polls of northern Republicans, as I believe that much of the Republican Party regardless of region has devoted itself to viewing the Civil War as a battle against a tyrannical central government looking to crack down on states' rights that, in their minds, had little to do with the enslavement of blacks. After all, it's not just in Texas that right-wing governors have been talking about nullification.

Robert E. Lee, Traitor

In probably my favorite Disunion piece so far, Elizabeth Brown Pryor takes to task the myth of Robert E. Lee taking the natural stand to defend his state against Union tyranny. Like much about Civil War mythology, this has little to no truth.

Lee was not brave nor honorable in refusing to serve his country. We've long known that many southerners fought for the Union, including George Thomas.

But as Pryor points out, a recently discovered letter from Lee's daughter shows that Lee actually countered the wishes of most of his own family in committing treason. Two of his own cousins served the Union, including Admiral Samuel Phillips Lee!!!

So I have even less respect for Lee than I did yesterday. Here is a man who refused an order to protect Washington, D.C., outraging his fellow Virginian Winfield Scott, who basically kicked him out of the army. Here is a man who turned his back not only on his nation, but on the military tradition of his own family and the desires of his own wife and children in order to protect slavery.

And while I don't want to trivialize Lee's decision, because it was a hard one for him to make, he was also completely wrong.

Robert E. Lee is not a hero. He was not a good man. He was a traitor to his country. And he should be remembered as such.

Why James Buchanan is Our Worst President

Forgive my disappearance for the last several days--I had a close friend in town and am trying to now catch up on work. But I did want to reference Jean Baker's great Disunion piece on James Buchanan, succinctly demonstrating why he was the worst president in American history:

The question remains why such an experienced and intelligent president failed so miserably. Americans lavish attention on their successful presidents; yet there is much to be learned from our presidential failures. Buchanan did not suffer from feebleness or age or the insufficient powers of 19th century executives. Rather, he failed because he used that power with such partiality as an activist, ideologically driven executive. He had chosen sides in the great crisis and did not listen.

Negligent about slavery, but greatly attached to the values of white southerners, he went beyond political custom by castigating Republicans as disloyal. Yet his vision for the future of the United States was at odds with most Americans, whose definition of freedom did not include a slave republic dominated by a minority of slave owners. In one of the essential ingredients of successful leadership, Buchanan had failed to interpret his nation. Tragically, his administration served to encourage the future enemies of the republic as he gave the Confederate States of America precious time and support to organize for war.

The Crittenden Compromise

I've been catching up on the Times superb Disunion series. If they continue this for the next 14 years, through the Compromise of 1877, it won't have ended too late. I was reading a piece today on the Crittenden Compromise, devised as a last ditch effort to save the Union from dissolution. I had forgotten how loathsome and unacceptable it was:

Crittenden’s plan consisted of a package of constitutional amendments and congressional resolutions, all of which would be “unamendable.” Among their provisions, these amendments would have protected slavery in all of the slave states from future actions by Congress; permitted slavery to spread in all federal territories and future territories below the line of 36 degrees 30 minutes north latitude (which runs roughly along the northern border of North Carolina, Tennesee, Arkansas, Oklahoma, New Mexico and Arizona); forbidden Congress from abolishing slavery on federal property within a slave state; prevented Congress from interfering with the interstate slave trade; and indemnified owners whose runaway slaves could not be recovered under the Fugitive Slave Law. 

Yikes. I can't state strongly enough how absolutely unacceptable this was. First, like the Missouri Compromise and Compromise of 1850, it wouldn't have satiated the South's desire to make the nation fully slave. Second, it would have institutionalized slavery to an extent making it much harder to get rid of. Third, it would have meant complete capitulation to right-wing forces.

Some thought Lincoln would accept it. He's been interpreted as a man willing to do anything to save the Union, but clearly he was not. It's an unfair analogy, but one wonders what a DLC-influenced Democrat would have done in the same situation. At the very least, it's nice to remember a president standing up to evil conservative forces and draw a line in the sand instead of constantly moving right and engaging in triangulation.

It's also shocking how close the Crittenden Compromise came to passing:

When Crittenden took his plan to the Senate floor on Jan. 16, 1861, it was voted down 25-23. Every one of the 25 no votes was cast by a Republican.

Had Lincoln not taken such a strong stand, it would have passed. Of course, the constitutional amendments would have to have gone to the states and I find it unlikely they would have achieved ratification. But I'm glad we didn't have to find out. 

Historical Image of the Day

Burning of the Colored Orphan Asylum, New York City Draft Riots, 1863

Civil War Books

I've simply been too overwhelmingly busy this year to write many book reviews for the blog (or to blog much period). For this, I apologize. Luckily, there are great writers out there willing to do a lot of this work for me. If you are looking for the best in Civil War related books that came out in 2010, definitely check out Kevin Levin's suggestions. I wish I had time to do so.

Historical Image of the Day

Charleston, South Carolina after its well-deserved destruction, 1865

Historical Image of the Day

This week's we will focus on the prison in American history.

Andersonville Prison, Georgia, Civil War

Facial Hair of the Weekend

Once again, Civil War facial hair, this time with Union general and American hero Ulysses S. Grant.

Historical Image of the Day

Abraham Lincoln and General George McClellan, 1862

Historical Image of the Day

"Solution of the Labor Question in the South," Harper's Weekly, 1865

What Texas Secession Looks Like

Now that we know that a majority of Texas Republicans think secession is a good idea, what would secession in Texas look like? Specifically, how have treasonous Texans treated dissenters in the past? I already discussed what happened to Juan Seguin, a hero of the Alamo who was forced out when he fought against the white supremacy at the core of the Texas revolution.

But of course, Texas committed treason in defense of slavery twice. I've been talking about their first rebellious period, but what about the Civil War? Not all Texans wanted to secede. Like in most of the Southern states, there were pockets of unionists. Usually these were people who did not identify with the planter elites who controlled their state's economy and political life. These people tended to live in mountainous regions that did not lend themselves to plantation agriculture--western Virginia, east Tennessee, north Alabama, etc. One of these places was the Texas hill country. In the 1840s and 50s, German immigrants flooded into the hills west of Austin and San Antonio. They had little interest in slavery and were loyal to their new home. But they identified that home as the United States, not Texas. That was a fatal mistake.

When the war started, these Germans opted out. They wanted nothing to do with treason or secession. This quickly raised the ire of English-speaking Texans who did not tolerate dissent from the slave power. This dissent reached a tipping point in the spring of 1862, when the Confederacy instituted a draft. The non-slave owning poor would have to fight a war for the slaveholding elite. The hill country Germans actively resisted. Texas declared martial law in the resisting countries. In response, some of Germans decided to cross the border into Mexico and sit the war out.

The Texans had two choices at this point--let them go and forget about it, or go after them. They decided for the latter. As the Germans neared the Rio Grande, on August 10, 1862, the Texans caught up with them. The Texans opened fire. As their victims lay dying in the sands of the Nueces River, the Texans began executing the prisoners. Overall, 34 German immigrants died that day, fleeing the treasonous and murderous Texans.

After the war, the German community of Comfort, about 20 miles south of Fredericksburg, put up a monument to the dead. Today, it is one of only two non-battlefield monuments to dead Union supporters in the ex-Confederacy (I believe the other is in Tennessee). In German, and with the U.S. flag flying at half mast over it, it's an interesting document to the immigrant history of the United States, the loyalty to their new nation many immigrants felt, and the horrible evil at the soul of the Confederacy.

One might think that a modern day secessionist movement in Texas would treat its dissenters with less violence. But if actual secession broke out, I'm not confident that we nationalists would be treated any better, particularly once the yahoos down here realized that Fort Hood and NASA and Fort Bliss and all the other huge government installations down here would leave. Once they realized their desperate situation, anything would be possible. Including massacres of loyal Americans.

Historical Image of the Day

Timothy O'Sullivan's photo, "The Harvest of Death," Gettysburg, 1863

Historical Image of the Day

General George Thomas. Thomas was a non-treasonous Virginian who fought with the Union during the Civil War.

Historical Image of the Day

Mass grave of dead Confederate soldiers. Antietam, 1862.