I think the distinction between Union Army and United States Army is well understood by most. And an officer could be a General of US Volunteers but a Lt Colonel in the US Army. An example of failure to make the distinction: In a book called "Telling the Truth About History" published in 1994, by Joyce Appleby, Lynn Hunt, and Margaret Jacob, they say that at after the Civil war "the full force of the Union Army was turned against the Native Americans" (or something like that). I think that would strike most readers as nonsense.
As for Plantation, would it not be best to say Slave-worked Plantation or something? A plantation is a form of agriculture, which can operate with enslaved, indentured (eg British tea in Sri Lanka, sugar in Mauritius etc) or free labour.
Words matter. I remember a not-so-gentle reminder decades ago that not all "southerners" were white, nor was "the South" a bloc. The border states as well as the thousands of Black and whites in blue meant that it was never a simple matter of "North versus South."
I've also used "Federal" for more than twenty years now. "Union" was certainly contemporary, but it also obfuscates in post-war discourse, as if the "Union" states and armies lost the right to be the United States until the war ended. I think it reinforces the "War between the States" trope. As another commentator mentions, even the volunteeers had those "US" buttons.
What intrigues me is how we have forgotten "National army," which people from Greeley to Grant used during and after the war. No one uses that now. It evaporated in the "romance of reunion."
Your point about the problem with referencing the "Union" or "Union army" is one that I am hearing more and more. William Freehling's book *The South v. The South* has really helped me think through the importance of language re: "many Souths."
Sometimes, I still use "slave" but "enslaved person" is important to me because I feel like it's a way of giving back to people from whom so much was taken from. That said, I think it's more a term for us than them because it's too late to make their lives any better. But I can do something to make how we remember them better. But last year, I pissed somebody off with the word "enslaved." I was asked to give a presentation at a reenactment event and I used the word. When I asked if anyone had any questions, one neo-Confederate guy referred to "enslaved" as "Cultural Marxism." Good grief.
As for "forced labor camp" as opposed to "plantation," I'm not so sure about that one. While I get the forced labor, plantations were still someone else's home. I guess the lesson there is how a person could live in what is supposed to be our most sacred place while others around them live a nightmare?
I still say "Union" and "Union Army" because those terms can be found in primary sources as well. But as for the other side, I've noticed that "rebel" and "rebellion" have fallen out of widespread use for "Confederate" and "Confederacy." I suspect that has something to do with neo-Confederates who insist that they were not in rebellion from the intent of the Founding Fathers. By they way, I have seen "so-called Confederate States" used on original documents.
Some people have also rejected the term "civil war" because war is not civil, not to mention that they believe the rebels were not fighting for anything the United States had. This is absolutely ridiculous. I think the fight was for which side could claim that they were the true heirs of the Founding Fathers. After all, both sides claimed to be Americans.
Last thing- I'm reluctant to use the term "African American" before 1865, even though the term was in use before that date. I don't have any problem with the term myself, but I just wonder if some of those enslaved people even wanted to be Americans at all.
The use of Union Army and United States Army is an interesting question. it is a question that epitomizes this question about interpreting the past, especially the Civil War. In the years 1861 t0 1865 the guys in Blue were mostly the United States Army. But you could, as Kevin points out, have regulars and you could have US volunteers. And, it is important to note that both components included significant numbers of immigrants as well as native born citizens and that the US Volunteers eventually came to include US Colored Troops as well, although in segregated units. As discrete groups they regarded themselves very differently from each other but often, as Kevin also points out, the populace of the period just saw them as United States troops. And the regulars and the volunteers definitely saw themselves as very different from the militia. But in many ways the regulars and the volunteers both reflected the diversity of American society at mid-19th century (the good and the bad).
Do these distinctions matter? I'm not sure, but I think so. it seems to me it is important to know that for a brief period in the middle of the 19th century they all made up what was arguably the country's first national army (an army with considerable groupings of members who really didn't like each other much) and who, through their actions on the battlefield and in policing the victory afterwards insured the abolition of slavery and the country's survival even if as individuals they weren't always so sure about the policies they were enforcing.
I also think you can carry this concern about language too far. Several years ago I was really irritated by a book review in state historical society journal. The book was about emancipation and reconstruction. The reviewer was very critical of the author for using terms like freedman and slave and plantation and other terms of the mid-19th century to describe events, activities and people of the time. I think to understand the past you must understand it as people of the time did. I don't think you can do that with out understanding and using their language. I do think if the meaning of words and ideas has changed over time it is the obligation of the historian to explain that as part of the analysis offered.
This is not a simple set of issues, and I find myself all over the place. I really do NOT like "enslavers" and "enslaved." I totally understand the reason for urging the change ("master" clearly should be on its way out) but, as a writer, I just don't like the new terminology. (For one thing, a simple typo---and look where the "r" and "d" keys are on your keyboard---is disastrous to the author's meaning.) While I acknowledge the issues with the terms, I think "slave" and "slaveholder" are more to the point, and blunt about what is going on. I like the idea of more use of "United States forces" to emphasize that the rebels were enemies, but there are times when "Union" or "Federal" just work better, if only for word variation. I like the de-emphasis on "Confederate." I also like the emphasis on "Union."
Yes, the terms used have great influence over the content and direction of any discussion. IIRC, contemporary abolitionists used the term "slave holder", which makes the power relationship clear and avoids the implication of ownership rights.
And Ty Seidule is one of those who prefer the term "United States army", having made a career in the modern one.
Nice review. I remember being advised in about 1998 about the use of enslaved over slave. Have tried to do so ever since. Read something earlier today that placed advocacy for that phrase in the late 1970s--much longer ago than I had imagined.
I wonder if Rebel will ever make a comeback in describing Confederates. I see it among learned folks on Twitter, and remember reading about an academic book published last year that did it, but we haven't got critical mass on it yet.
Anyhow, I know that each case is taken on its own, but I couldn't help notice that it seems you find the contemporaneous use of "United States" as a compelling reason to use it when referring to the "Union" today, while at the same time accepting Dr. Williams' (following Ed. Baptist) use of "labor camp" to describe what we usually call plantations. Did anyone at the time refer to them as such? I don't know but would love to find out. I think its fine to use "labor camps" and I shy away from using plantation as well, but it does take some getting used to.
I am also sensitive to the use of "slave labor camp" for the reasons you mention, though I think it does important interpretive work.
I can't see referring to "Rebels" in any context other than a non-academic setting like social media. It would raise too many questions about author intent, etc. I certainly don't need the additional aggravation. :-)
I think the distinction between Union Army and United States Army is well understood by most. And an officer could be a General of US Volunteers but a Lt Colonel in the US Army. An example of failure to make the distinction: In a book called "Telling the Truth About History" published in 1994, by Joyce Appleby, Lynn Hunt, and Margaret Jacob, they say that at after the Civil war "the full force of the Union Army was turned against the Native Americans" (or something like that). I think that would strike most readers as nonsense.
As for Plantation, would it not be best to say Slave-worked Plantation or something? A plantation is a form of agriculture, which can operate with enslaved, indentured (eg British tea in Sri Lanka, sugar in Mauritius etc) or free labour.
Words matter. I remember a not-so-gentle reminder decades ago that not all "southerners" were white, nor was "the South" a bloc. The border states as well as the thousands of Black and whites in blue meant that it was never a simple matter of "North versus South."
I've also used "Federal" for more than twenty years now. "Union" was certainly contemporary, but it also obfuscates in post-war discourse, as if the "Union" states and armies lost the right to be the United States until the war ended. I think it reinforces the "War between the States" trope. As another commentator mentions, even the volunteeers had those "US" buttons.
What intrigues me is how we have forgotten "National army," which people from Greeley to Grant used during and after the war. No one uses that now. It evaporated in the "romance of reunion."
Hi Ken,
Your point about the problem with referencing the "Union" or "Union army" is one that I am hearing more and more. William Freehling's book *The South v. The South* has really helped me think through the importance of language re: "many Souths."
Sometimes, I still use "slave" but "enslaved person" is important to me because I feel like it's a way of giving back to people from whom so much was taken from. That said, I think it's more a term for us than them because it's too late to make their lives any better. But I can do something to make how we remember them better. But last year, I pissed somebody off with the word "enslaved." I was asked to give a presentation at a reenactment event and I used the word. When I asked if anyone had any questions, one neo-Confederate guy referred to "enslaved" as "Cultural Marxism." Good grief.
As for "forced labor camp" as opposed to "plantation," I'm not so sure about that one. While I get the forced labor, plantations were still someone else's home. I guess the lesson there is how a person could live in what is supposed to be our most sacred place while others around them live a nightmare?
I still say "Union" and "Union Army" because those terms can be found in primary sources as well. But as for the other side, I've noticed that "rebel" and "rebellion" have fallen out of widespread use for "Confederate" and "Confederacy." I suspect that has something to do with neo-Confederates who insist that they were not in rebellion from the intent of the Founding Fathers. By they way, I have seen "so-called Confederate States" used on original documents.
Some people have also rejected the term "civil war" because war is not civil, not to mention that they believe the rebels were not fighting for anything the United States had. This is absolutely ridiculous. I think the fight was for which side could claim that they were the true heirs of the Founding Fathers. After all, both sides claimed to be Americans.
Last thing- I'm reluctant to use the term "African American" before 1865, even though the term was in use before that date. I don't have any problem with the term myself, but I just wonder if some of those enslaved people even wanted to be Americans at all.
All good points, Bryan. I completely agree with your point about the use of "enslaved person" rather that "slave." Thanks.
The use of Union Army and United States Army is an interesting question. it is a question that epitomizes this question about interpreting the past, especially the Civil War. In the years 1861 t0 1865 the guys in Blue were mostly the United States Army. But you could, as Kevin points out, have regulars and you could have US volunteers. And, it is important to note that both components included significant numbers of immigrants as well as native born citizens and that the US Volunteers eventually came to include US Colored Troops as well, although in segregated units. As discrete groups they regarded themselves very differently from each other but often, as Kevin also points out, the populace of the period just saw them as United States troops. And the regulars and the volunteers definitely saw themselves as very different from the militia. But in many ways the regulars and the volunteers both reflected the diversity of American society at mid-19th century (the good and the bad).
Do these distinctions matter? I'm not sure, but I think so. it seems to me it is important to know that for a brief period in the middle of the 19th century they all made up what was arguably the country's first national army (an army with considerable groupings of members who really didn't like each other much) and who, through their actions on the battlefield and in policing the victory afterwards insured the abolition of slavery and the country's survival even if as individuals they weren't always so sure about the policies they were enforcing.
I also think you can carry this concern about language too far. Several years ago I was really irritated by a book review in state historical society journal. The book was about emancipation and reconstruction. The reviewer was very critical of the author for using terms like freedman and slave and plantation and other terms of the mid-19th century to describe events, activities and people of the time. I think to understand the past you must understand it as people of the time did. I don't think you can do that with out understanding and using their language. I do think if the meaning of words and ideas has changed over time it is the obligation of the historian to explain that as part of the analysis offered.
This is not a simple set of issues, and I find myself all over the place. I really do NOT like "enslavers" and "enslaved." I totally understand the reason for urging the change ("master" clearly should be on its way out) but, as a writer, I just don't like the new terminology. (For one thing, a simple typo---and look where the "r" and "d" keys are on your keyboard---is disastrous to the author's meaning.) While I acknowledge the issues with the terms, I think "slave" and "slaveholder" are more to the point, and blunt about what is going on. I like the idea of more use of "United States forces" to emphasize that the rebels were enemies, but there are times when "Union" or "Federal" just work better, if only for word variation. I like the de-emphasis on "Confederate." I also like the emphasis on "Union."
Yes, the terms used have great influence over the content and direction of any discussion. IIRC, contemporary abolitionists used the term "slave holder", which makes the power relationship clear and avoids the implication of ownership rights.
And Ty Seidule is one of those who prefer the term "United States army", having made a career in the modern one.
Nice review. I remember being advised in about 1998 about the use of enslaved over slave. Have tried to do so ever since. Read something earlier today that placed advocacy for that phrase in the late 1970s--much longer ago than I had imagined.
I wonder if Rebel will ever make a comeback in describing Confederates. I see it among learned folks on Twitter, and remember reading about an academic book published last year that did it, but we haven't got critical mass on it yet.
Anyhow, I know that each case is taken on its own, but I couldn't help notice that it seems you find the contemporaneous use of "United States" as a compelling reason to use it when referring to the "Union" today, while at the same time accepting Dr. Williams' (following Ed. Baptist) use of "labor camp" to describe what we usually call plantations. Did anyone at the time refer to them as such? I don't know but would love to find out. I think its fine to use "labor camps" and I shy away from using plantation as well, but it does take some getting used to.
I am also sensitive to the use of "slave labor camp" for the reasons you mention, though I think it does important interpretive work.
I can't see referring to "Rebels" in any context other than a non-academic setting like social media. It would raise too many questions about author intent, etc. I certainly don't need the additional aggravation. :-)
Can we go with what was in their buttons - USA?