Most confederate soldiers did not own slaves. Most were poor farmers trying to survive. They fought for their personal state first, Confederacy second. I understand demonizing the Confederate government but why would a person demonize an individual soldier. Most were just like us.
This is the wrong way to look at it. Rather than looking at individual ownership, you should look at whether the families from which they came from owned slaves. In that case, the percentage jumps way up, especially in Lee's Army of Northern Virginia.
But even if a Confederate soldier didn't own slaves, he was reminded of its importance every day he was in the army. Thousands of enslaved laborers were attached to Confederate armies performing all kinds of supportive roles. Without these men Confederate armies could not operate.
Finally, every soldier--regardless of slave ownership--fought for a nation whose goal was the protection and expansion of slavery.
Thanks, Kevin. I look forward to seeing how you share the archive and, as always, hope it will be digitized and shared with teachers and students in the future. Would love to collaborate with you on that, if you are interested.
Henry Louis Gates, on the documentary on PBS, episode 11, researched the family of Chef Sean Sherman. The story of Sherman's family humanizes his ancestors, including one who was born a slave, fought in the Continental Army and later married an American Indian woman!
This is a great topic that I have not visited in a while!
My own journey into the study of the Civil War began with a university reading assignment of Michael Shaara’s “Killer Angels”. It was also a novel, but for some reason, I could not avoid conflating the factual/historical reality and the sympathetic, fictional manner in which the characters were illustrated. It took me many months & a few hard knocks to graduate into factual events of the Civil War, which were nonetheless deeply rich in the human condition of all sides of the war.
Fast forward. For personal reasons, George Custer has always been held to the lowest depths of the villain we know him as. My family celebrates “Custer Day” (loss of the Battle of Greasy Grass, LBH) I was given a copy of T.J. Stiles, “Custer’s Trials” as a gift. I initially resented the hell out of the manner in which the book humanized all of the individuals in the story, mainly Custer. However, by the time I reached midpoint, I loved the book. I loved it because it helped me understand the foibles, follies, and milestones of Custer’s life. It also helped me let go of the boogie man aspect of the man, himself, and judge him factually, rather than emotionally.
I wrap it up, here. The question, accusations, finger pointing is not whether a historical figure- good or bad - is “humanized”, but rather, was he/she presented factually. Did the writer exercise due diligence in cross-referencing the good with the bad and the otherwise? In my experience, you have exercised this due diligence, thus, the initial comment has no relevance.
Thanks for this comment. I would say that part of what it means to humanize people from the past is to present them factually, to whatever extent possible. But I also think it involves presenting people in a way that is possible for the reader to see themselves (even if it is just a tiny part) in that person. In other words, a recognition of the universality of certain experiences.
The mention of "old Abe Cook" piqued my curiosity, as I live a dozen miles or so from Fountain Inn, South Carolina. A quick Google search tells me that the Abraham Cook house was included in a 1980 listing of South Carolina historic properties. Abe himself was born in 1838 and died in 1914 at the age of 75, according to his gravestone on the Find a Grave website. It's a CSA marker that indicates he served in Co E 15 Miss Regt, which means he's our man. There's a portrait there, but I can't transfer it, sadly.
Thanks so much for the additional information. George also served in Co. E. There are a lot of names in these letters that I will need to research. This is a nice start.
I’ve been trying to write the stories of my maternal ancestors but I’ve been stuck for quite a while on my grandfather’s story. In every story passed down to me, mean old George P. was one dimensional - he was an angry and abusive drunk. And yet, as I learn more about him, his service in WWI for example my perspective on him began to broaden - but that left me feeling guilty for those he had harmed. Was I doing a disservice to them? When you used the word humanizing today, I realized that’s what was happening in my research. Researching the available history of his life has had the effect of humanizing him- he became more (and more of a mystery) than mean old George P. And listening to you today made me realize that’s okay.
This is such a wonderful comment, Candee. Thanks so much for sharing and all the best with your continued research of your grandfather. Sounds like a fascinating story.
Southerners needed to justify their way of life and clinging to and promoting “ lost cause “ myths and statues worked.
Let’s not forget northern businessmen who went south after the civil war, became rich, and married into southern society. Not too sure they were that concerned about Jim Crow.
What I am now wondering is why so many southerners were drawn to NY city. Did they find home limiting in some way ??
And why did so many end up at Princeton ?? What effect did southerners professors have on Ivy League schools ??
Thank you for connecting the letters to how relationships reinforced belief in “ lost cause “ myth.
I think you have just written a great book proposal. Think of all the stuff there is on the subject that we know about already (Quentin Compson and Woodrow Wilson come to mind), but there must be a lot more that might show how this process changed over time.
I don't know of one book that addresses your questions. David Blight recently published a very interesting book about Yale and slavery. The book includes quite a bit about the southern influence on the school, including students and professors. The recent report from Harvard on the history of slavery at the school is titled *The Legacy of Slavery at Harvard* and includes a bit about the experiences of southern students in the years leading up to the Civil War.
Most confederate soldiers did not own slaves. Most were poor farmers trying to survive. They fought for their personal state first, Confederacy second. I understand demonizing the Confederate government but why would a person demonize an individual soldier. Most were just like us.
This is the wrong way to look at it. Rather than looking at individual ownership, you should look at whether the families from which they came from owned slaves. In that case, the percentage jumps way up, especially in Lee's Army of Northern Virginia.
But even if a Confederate soldier didn't own slaves, he was reminded of its importance every day he was in the army. Thousands of enslaved laborers were attached to Confederate armies performing all kinds of supportive roles. Without these men Confederate armies could not operate.
Finally, every soldier--regardless of slave ownership--fought for a nation whose goal was the protection and expansion of slavery.
Thanks, Kevin. I look forward to seeing how you share the archive and, as always, hope it will be digitized and shared with teachers and students in the future. Would love to collaborate with you on that, if you are interested.
Hi Annie,
I would love to talk with you further about this when you have time. Thank you.
Sent you a message via your website
Henry Louis Gates, on the documentary on PBS, episode 11, researched the family of Chef Sean Sherman. The story of Sherman's family humanizes his ancestors, including one who was born a slave, fought in the Continental Army and later married an American Indian woman!
This is a great topic that I have not visited in a while!
My own journey into the study of the Civil War began with a university reading assignment of Michael Shaara’s “Killer Angels”. It was also a novel, but for some reason, I could not avoid conflating the factual/historical reality and the sympathetic, fictional manner in which the characters were illustrated. It took me many months & a few hard knocks to graduate into factual events of the Civil War, which were nonetheless deeply rich in the human condition of all sides of the war.
Fast forward. For personal reasons, George Custer has always been held to the lowest depths of the villain we know him as. My family celebrates “Custer Day” (loss of the Battle of Greasy Grass, LBH) I was given a copy of T.J. Stiles, “Custer’s Trials” as a gift. I initially resented the hell out of the manner in which the book humanized all of the individuals in the story, mainly Custer. However, by the time I reached midpoint, I loved the book. I loved it because it helped me understand the foibles, follies, and milestones of Custer’s life. It also helped me let go of the boogie man aspect of the man, himself, and judge him factually, rather than emotionally.
I wrap it up, here. The question, accusations, finger pointing is not whether a historical figure- good or bad - is “humanized”, but rather, was he/she presented factually. Did the writer exercise due diligence in cross-referencing the good with the bad and the otherwise? In my experience, you have exercised this due diligence, thus, the initial comment has no relevance.
Thanks for this comment. I would say that part of what it means to humanize people from the past is to present them factually, to whatever extent possible. But I also think it involves presenting people in a way that is possible for the reader to see themselves (even if it is just a tiny part) in that person. In other words, a recognition of the universality of certain experiences.
The mention of "old Abe Cook" piqued my curiosity, as I live a dozen miles or so from Fountain Inn, South Carolina. A quick Google search tells me that the Abraham Cook house was included in a 1980 listing of South Carolina historic properties. Abe himself was born in 1838 and died in 1914 at the age of 75, according to his gravestone on the Find a Grave website. It's a CSA marker that indicates he served in Co E 15 Miss Regt, which means he's our man. There's a portrait there, but I can't transfer it, sadly.
Hi Alan,
Thanks so much for the additional information. George also served in Co. E. There are a lot of names in these letters that I will need to research. This is a nice start.
I’ve been trying to write the stories of my maternal ancestors but I’ve been stuck for quite a while on my grandfather’s story. In every story passed down to me, mean old George P. was one dimensional - he was an angry and abusive drunk. And yet, as I learn more about him, his service in WWI for example my perspective on him began to broaden - but that left me feeling guilty for those he had harmed. Was I doing a disservice to them? When you used the word humanizing today, I realized that’s what was happening in my research. Researching the available history of his life has had the effect of humanizing him- he became more (and more of a mystery) than mean old George P. And listening to you today made me realize that’s okay.
This is such a wonderful comment, Candee. Thanks so much for sharing and all the best with your continued research of your grandfather. Sounds like a fascinating story.
Southerners needed to justify their way of life and clinging to and promoting “ lost cause “ myths and statues worked.
Let’s not forget northern businessmen who went south after the civil war, became rich, and married into southern society. Not too sure they were that concerned about Jim Crow.
What I am now wondering is why so many southerners were drawn to NY city. Did they find home limiting in some way ??
And why did so many end up at Princeton ?? What effect did southerners professors have on Ivy League schools ??
Thank you for connecting the letters to how relationships reinforced belief in “ lost cause “ myth.
Is there a book that addresses my questions.
Thank you.
I think you have just written a great book proposal. Think of all the stuff there is on the subject that we know about already (Quentin Compson and Woodrow Wilson come to mind), but there must be a lot more that might show how this process changed over time.
I don't know of one book that addresses your questions. David Blight recently published a very interesting book about Yale and slavery. The book includes quite a bit about the southern influence on the school, including students and professors. The recent report from Harvard on the history of slavery at the school is titled *The Legacy of Slavery at Harvard* and includes a bit about the experiences of southern students in the years leading up to the Civil War.
Thank you
No I've always thought you were historical in your analysis.
OK. This one convinced me to upgrade to a paid sub.
Thanks so much, Robert. I really appreciate the support and I couldn't be more pleased to hear that this post resonated with you.
You might enjoy this short from Vicksburg: https://youtube.com/shorts/UYgkOhv3HTQ?si=1VAk50L0caJ_-N4h
Thanks for sharing, Leon.