Grant can speak for me: "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."
I think, when you humanize "the other side" (whomever that happens to be), to see them as people and not monsters, it helps to clarify their mistakes, and helps to see how your own people could slide into whatever awfulness you're fighting against. We're all human, and all human societies are capable of evil. Even now, I have to remind myself what I have in common with some of the truly terrible people trying to usher in a new age of white supremacist authoritarianism.
This is a bit out of left field but seeing the humanity in the other person reminds me of what one of the soldiers, Shifty Powers, said in the Band of Brothers series about his German opponent. “A lot of those soldiers—well, I’ve thought about this often—that man and I might have been good friends. We might’ve had a lot in common. He might have liked to fish. He might have liked to hunt. ‘Course, they was doing what they was supposed to do, and I was trying to do what I was supposed to do. But under different circumstances we might have been good friends.”
So true! People and events are much more complex than the one or two things by which they get defined. Black and white thinking contributes to offensive stereotypes and, I think, to myth making.
The study of history requires acceptance of varying shades of gray along with shades of many colors.
I wholeheartedly agree with you about the humanity of Confederate soldiers. They were still human beings, and I think there is a lot of history we can learn from their stories. But it is true that they defined themselves by White supremacy and enslaving Black people. Just the other day, I was in Gettysburg for the 159th anniversary of the battle, and someone mentioned that when common soldiers were experiencing the summer heat and the exhaustion of walking from Virginia to Pennsylvania, they were thinking about issues like hunger and thirst and not bigger issues like slavery. But in that summer heat and in that exhaustion from a long march, they still managed to kidnap Black Pennsylvanians and send them into the Confederacy for slavery.
I think the key here is how we FULLY understand the White people of the Confederacy, as we navigate their history through people who either see nothing about them but slavery, or those who refuse to see this part of their lives and how much it shaped who they are and how much it defined them as Americans.
Thanks for pointing that out. Lots going on today and I wanted to make sure to get this post published.
Thanks for the positive feedback. I've been meaning to write a post like this for some time. You make a lot of good points. One thing to remember for the next time someone references the hunger and thirst of the rank-and-file is that thousands of enslaved men experienced the very same thing.
Confederate soldiers didn't have to think about slavery. They were surrounded by it every single day.
"Confederate soldiers didn't have to think about slavery. They were surrounded by it every single day."
You're absolutely right, Kevin. They simply brought the slavery that was a part of their everyday lives with them to the army. And THAT is the "Black Confederate soldiers" that too many are so desperate to see.
Kevin, excellent commentary. I often try to warn my children against engaging in "presentism" which I define as judging the past based on the morals and values of the present. Instead, try to understand why our ancestors believed the way they did within the context of their era and then figure out what we can learn from that to make a better world for us in the present. Your remarks about how we should not reduce these men to a simple throwaway line speaks to this belief as well, in my humble opinion. As does how any attempt today to humanize these people is, unfortunately, immediately labeled as racist. While we, today, obviously view the Confederate cause as "immoral," I highly doubt they viewed the reasons for which they fought in that manner. Trying to gain a deep understanding of why they felt that way will make us all better people in the present. We should not be too quick to judge because, after all, who knows what values we hold dear today that our descendants of a century or more from now may find abhorrent.
There were also people of the 1860s who viewed the Confederate cause as immoral, as I'm sure you know. As a historian, it is a tough balance. I do believe White Supremacy and slavery were very much part of their everyday lives, and very much in their everyday details. And often when I read where they mention fighting for their homes and their families, I can't think of much beyond them fighting for the assurance that Black people will never be set free to be on an equal level with them; and most definitely than Black male sexuality will never "assault" virtuous White womanhood.
Thanks for the response, Paul. I think our judgements should be based on the relevant historical context. I think this involves treating historical actors as complex and not simply in a way that is self serving.
I certainly don't believe that Confederates didn't always think about slavery in moral terms during the war. Some may have never thought about it, but what I am trying to move people toward is understanding that they didn't have to understand slavery's importance to the Confederacy. They were surrounded by enslaved men in the army. It was a central part of their world regardless of whether they were slaveowners.
Thankfully, historians, including yours truly, are telling those stories through publications, social media, and at historic sites like Gettysburg.
BTW, I would have to go back to my records, but it's not clear to me who you are referring to in this comment. There was a Confederate general John Bankhead Magruder, but he didn't live in Albemarle County.
Given my publication record and commentary over the years, I don't think anyone would suggest that I am in any way "sweeping real persons under" anything. I have written entire books that center the stories of the enslaved and those who have intentionally distorted and/or ignored this history.
You are not telling me anything I don't already know about the memory of the Civil War and slavery.
All we know from that 1860 Slave Schedule census record is that there was some guy named John B. Magruder in Prince George's County Maryland who enslaved people. But we don't know if this is the same person who is the subject of Kevin's original post; or if P.G. County's John B. ever served in the Provisional Army of the Confederate States.
History can be very confusing when historical figures have the same name. Kevin has researched my great great uncle. This John Bowie Magruder grew up outside of Charlottesville. The home was called Glenmore. It is still the ancestral home of this branch of the Magruder Family. Near the home is the family cemetery. John’s parents are buried there: Benjamin Magruder and his wife Louisa Minor Magruder. They are my great great grandparents.
I've devoted my career as a historian to centering the story of the enslaved in the Civil War and in the Confederate army specifically. Your comment beautifully sums up much of what I believe re: the importance of interpreting the experiences of the enslaved. We just disagree that the solution is the removal of park monuments.
If you really want to prevent people from misinterpreting Civil War battlefields like Gettysburg you should be advocating that they be closed down and cemented over with a shopping mall or housing development.
No, I am suggesting that this is logical outcome of your argument. You seem to think that the removal of Confederate monuments will somehow flip a switch on visitors interpreting the battlefield through a Lost Cause lens. I am suggesting that the monuments may not be the biggest problem in that regard.
What I have maintained is that these monuments can and are increasingly being used to help visitors understand the difference between history and memory. This would include a critique of the Lost Cause.
Relying on one example involving a political radical doesn't do much to support your argument. I've seen and led plenty of live tours of the monuments that reach a wide range of visitors. Even the professor you are referring to doesn't believe that the experience justifies their removal.
I am sorry if you think the study of memory is too "esoteric," but a s someone who has worked with students at the junior high and high school levels I strongly disagree.
And thank God for that successful defense.
Grant can speak for me: "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."
I think, when you humanize "the other side" (whomever that happens to be), to see them as people and not monsters, it helps to clarify their mistakes, and helps to see how your own people could slide into whatever awfulness you're fighting against. We're all human, and all human societies are capable of evil. Even now, I have to remind myself what I have in common with some of the truly terrible people trying to usher in a new age of white supremacist authoritarianism.
Hi Jayne,
Thanks for this thoughtful comment. Part of why we study history is to better understand the human condition.
I just read your article about John Bowie Magruder. I thoroughly enjoyed it. What a fine piece of writing.
Thanks for taking the time to read it. Very much appreciated.
Your research was outstanding. The prize was well deserved.
This is a bit out of left field but seeing the humanity in the other person reminds me of what one of the soldiers, Shifty Powers, said in the Band of Brothers series about his German opponent. “A lot of those soldiers—well, I’ve thought about this often—that man and I might have been good friends. We might’ve had a lot in common. He might have liked to fish. He might have liked to hunt. ‘Course, they was doing what they was supposed to do, and I was trying to do what I was supposed to do. But under different circumstances we might have been good friends.”
excellent post. enjoyed this very much and shared it on Facebook
Thanks and thanks for the share, Mary.
So true! People and events are much more complex than the one or two things by which they get defined. Black and white thinking contributes to offensive stereotypes and, I think, to myth making.
The study of history requires acceptance of varying shades of gray along with shades of many colors.
Well said, Laura.
Kevin,
I wholeheartedly agree with you about the humanity of Confederate soldiers. They were still human beings, and I think there is a lot of history we can learn from their stories. But it is true that they defined themselves by White supremacy and enslaving Black people. Just the other day, I was in Gettysburg for the 159th anniversary of the battle, and someone mentioned that when common soldiers were experiencing the summer heat and the exhaustion of walking from Virginia to Pennsylvania, they were thinking about issues like hunger and thirst and not bigger issues like slavery. But in that summer heat and in that exhaustion from a long march, they still managed to kidnap Black Pennsylvanians and send them into the Confederacy for slavery.
I think the key here is how we FULLY understand the White people of the Confederacy, as we navigate their history through people who either see nothing about them but slavery, or those who refuse to see this part of their lives and how much it shaped who they are and how much it defined them as Americans.
Hi Brian,
Thanks for pointing that out. Lots going on today and I wanted to make sure to get this post published.
Thanks for the positive feedback. I've been meaning to write a post like this for some time. You make a lot of good points. One thing to remember for the next time someone references the hunger and thirst of the rank-and-file is that thousands of enslaved men experienced the very same thing.
Confederate soldiers didn't have to think about slavery. They were surrounded by it every single day.
"Confederate soldiers didn't have to think about slavery. They were surrounded by it every single day."
You're absolutely right, Kevin. They simply brought the slavery that was a part of their everyday lives with them to the army. And THAT is the "Black Confederate soldiers" that too many are so desperate to see.
Kevin, excellent commentary. I often try to warn my children against engaging in "presentism" which I define as judging the past based on the morals and values of the present. Instead, try to understand why our ancestors believed the way they did within the context of their era and then figure out what we can learn from that to make a better world for us in the present. Your remarks about how we should not reduce these men to a simple throwaway line speaks to this belief as well, in my humble opinion. As does how any attempt today to humanize these people is, unfortunately, immediately labeled as racist. While we, today, obviously view the Confederate cause as "immoral," I highly doubt they viewed the reasons for which they fought in that manner. Trying to gain a deep understanding of why they felt that way will make us all better people in the present. We should not be too quick to judge because, after all, who knows what values we hold dear today that our descendants of a century or more from now may find abhorrent.
There were also people of the 1860s who viewed the Confederate cause as immoral, as I'm sure you know. As a historian, it is a tough balance. I do believe White Supremacy and slavery were very much part of their everyday lives, and very much in their everyday details. And often when I read where they mention fighting for their homes and their families, I can't think of much beyond them fighting for the assurance that Black people will never be set free to be on an equal level with them; and most definitely than Black male sexuality will never "assault" virtuous White womanhood.
and the assurance of the continued freedom to assault virtuous African American womanhood.
Thanks for the response, Paul. I think our judgements should be based on the relevant historical context. I think this involves treating historical actors as complex and not simply in a way that is self serving.
I certainly don't believe that Confederates didn't always think about slavery in moral terms during the war. Some may have never thought about it, but what I am trying to move people toward is understanding that they didn't have to understand slavery's importance to the Confederacy. They were surrounded by enslaved men in the army. It was a central part of their world regardless of whether they were slaveowners.
Thankfully, historians, including yours truly, are telling those stories through publications, social media, and at historic sites like Gettysburg.
BTW, I would have to go back to my records, but it's not clear to me who you are referring to in this comment. There was a Confederate general John Bankhead Magruder, but he didn't live in Albemarle County.
Given my publication record and commentary over the years, I don't think anyone would suggest that I am in any way "sweeping real persons under" anything. I have written entire books that center the stories of the enslaved and those who have intentionally distorted and/or ignored this history.
You are not telling me anything I don't already know about the memory of the Civil War and slavery.
All we know from that 1860 Slave Schedule census record is that there was some guy named John B. Magruder in Prince George's County Maryland who enslaved people. But we don't know if this is the same person who is the subject of Kevin's original post; or if P.G. County's John B. ever served in the Provisional Army of the Confederate States.
History can be very confusing when historical figures have the same name. Kevin has researched my great great uncle. This John Bowie Magruder grew up outside of Charlottesville. The home was called Glenmore. It is still the ancestral home of this branch of the Magruder Family. Near the home is the family cemetery. John’s parents are buried there: Benjamin Magruder and his wife Louisa Minor Magruder. They are my great great grandparents.
I've devoted my career as a historian to centering the story of the enslaved in the Civil War and in the Confederate army specifically. Your comment beautifully sums up much of what I believe re: the importance of interpreting the experiences of the enslaved. We just disagree that the solution is the removal of park monuments.
If you really want to prevent people from misinterpreting Civil War battlefields like Gettysburg you should be advocating that they be closed down and cemented over with a shopping mall or housing development.
No, I am suggesting that this is logical outcome of your argument. You seem to think that the removal of Confederate monuments will somehow flip a switch on visitors interpreting the battlefield through a Lost Cause lens. I am suggesting that the monuments may not be the biggest problem in that regard.
What I have maintained is that these monuments can and are increasingly being used to help visitors understand the difference between history and memory. This would include a critique of the Lost Cause.
Relying on one example involving a political radical doesn't do much to support your argument. I've seen and led plenty of live tours of the monuments that reach a wide range of visitors. Even the professor you are referring to doesn't believe that the experience justifies their removal.
I am sorry if you think the study of memory is too "esoteric," but a s someone who has worked with students at the junior high and high school levels I strongly disagree.
Guess I have a bit more hope for the future.
As always, thanks for the feedback.