Confederate Soldiers Served Too

[Fredda Davis Jones]

I’ve been poking around courthouse squares lately, and I have to say that it is gratifying to see the Confederate markers that I am seeing displayed there. Now, before you faint and fall over and proclaim me totally non-PC, hear me out because I say this knowing that many, many of you disagree with me.

First of all, as a historian I abhor even the slightest hint of rewriting history whether that history be good or bad. I also think it is a bit childish to refuse to acknowledge certain events simply because they represent a dark time in the history of our country. We need to know, and we need to learn from knowing.

So, let’s start our discussion by jumping right in and hitting the nail on the head. The institution of slavery that existed for many, many years in this country is one of those dark periods that I can barely comprehend. From the porch swing where I write tonight, I can’t even begin to wrap my head around the fact that there once existed people who dared, who had the unmitigated audacity to believe that they had the right to own another person…a right that gave them total control over another human being. And that is all I’m going to say on slavery in this article.

Now, with the issue of slavery out of the way, let’s start over and look at the other issues that actually drove the war: states rights, westward expansion, railroad expansion, trade, industry, taxes. These topics don’t get the press and they don’t raise the emotions that slavery does, but without heated disagreements over them, there would have been no war.

So, through the years politicians used the above to fan the flames hotter and hotter, pitting one part of the country against the other because that is what politicians do…and they beat the drums of war, and they called for volunteers to fight their war, and finally the first shots were fired by boy-men who were simply doing what boy-men do today when their country calls them…they go; they serve; and some of them die. In this particular war, most of them died.

From our perch here in the twenty-first century, it is easy to have harsh things to say about the Civil War and those who fought it. Apparently, it is easy for many to want to pretend it never happened and to remove it from the history books; however, it is not that easy for me because I realize that like every other war, men simply answered the call when their country issued it…just as they do today, and just as they will tomorrow.

Maybe it comes from the fact that I grew up during the Viet Nam era, and I saw first hand what happens when a country dishonors those who serve. I don’t know, but I do know that I would like to see a marker on every courthouse lawn across this country, honoring every single veteran of every single war that ever took an American citizen from his/her home in the name of service to this country.

And, yes, that means even including those men of the 1860’s who answered the call…judge the war if you please, that is the duty of history and historians, but honor the service of those who gave up so much in the name of country and honor and duty.

When you have a moment, slip on over to Dublin, Texas and ask them about their Memorial that honors all veterans of all wars. We all should all do such a thing!...

http://texansunited.com/dublin/points-of-interest/veterans-memorial

[anthony martin]

   Fredda,

      Articulately and correctly stated.Any sort of sanitized and selectively plucked history isn't really history in the true sense and defeats the purpose of not only telling where we've been and of serving as valuable lessons for real understanding.I'm reminded of someone that I know who literally stops her ears while saying not to tell her anything that will ruin her good mood or her viewpoint be it the relating of recent or historical events.She claims that much of history is irrelevant because it happened such a long time ago and creates bad feelings!

  Yes,there has been a huge political agenda to the business of selectively proffering  certain aspects of history and giving it  emphasis to the exclusion of information that provides a more complete view of how people thought in a certain time and place.That pretty much goes in all societies across the world though.They all fiddle with their own history.When I was in Japan I was both amazed and appalled  by how they quickly glossed by their years of aggressive and brutal imperialism.Ask your average Chinese or Korean how they feel about those years!

   Long,long before the idiot concept of P.C.our country's history was being whitewashed and manipulated.I think we can all remember the little rote mantras of selective history that we were drilled with in school to the point that when we grew older and became better informed it was often a shocking revelation of just how incomplete and distorted our education had been.

    This business of unvarnished truth is always the stuff of high emotion but the complete story always needs to be told.

[Fredda Davis Jones]

Janice and Anthony, I actually changed my settings to have to approve comments after I posted this one because I assumed I  would get kicked off of the site. Please understand that I am in no way promoting anything here but the truth. I believe there is danger in rewriting history so I try to tell it  like it was and then we can all say "Wasn't that horrible!" instead of raising generations who are ignorant of what happened before them.

PLUS, I also truly believe that we all lived within the times in which we are born. Young people have been marching off to war since the world began simply because their country called or even ordered. I watched what happened to our VN vets, and right or wrong, I will always honor our military...whether I believe they are fighting a just war or not.

 

Thank you so much for no crucifying me!! LOL

[Fredda Davis Jones]

Did not realize you were in Nocona. We know the West family there. Fred West coached in Comanche when we were in high school. Thanks!

[Dave McGowan]

Great article Fredda. Yes, we have no business judging those of yesterday by the ideals or morality of today. Hopefully we've learne a few things since "yesterday" and if we haven't then we have no business juding any one, period.

"History is written by the winners". That's why the battle for Troy was all about a woman and not about the money and power that was spent and expended by the winners.

[Daniel Buck]

Now, with the issue of slavery out of the way, let’s start over and look at the other issues that actually drove the war: states rights, westward expansion, railroad expansion, trade, industry, taxes. These topics don’t get the press and they don’t raise the emotions that slavery does, but without heated disagreements over them, there would have been no war.

=======

Fredda Davis Jones, are you actually positing that it wasn't slavery that sparked the Civil War?  That is was, instead, a litany of other issues that brought about secession?  As political correctness goes, that's about as ripe an example as could be.

Is there a single sentient Civil War historian who does not put slavery front and center as the condition precedent, the igniting cause of the war?

Don't get me wrong here.  I'm not registering any moral judgment on the mid-19th century actors, South or North, simply observing what happened. 

Of course, there was a bright side.  In return for a devastating war in which 100,000s died, slavery ended, even if that wasn't the North's intention when it responded to the attack on Fort Sumner.  The North, at least initialy, wanted to save the union. 

Perhaps for all concerned, it was a bloody example of the law of unintended consequences.

The other thing that strikes me is that slavery was perhaps the only issue that did get settled.  The other ones you mentioned are still with us.

Dan

[Fredda Davis Jones]

Dan, the point of the post is simply to say that we can hate the war and its causes all we please, but I at least will honor the service of those who fought, North and South alike as well as those in every other war that held an American in its grip.

 

But, since you asked, it seems to me that we fought rabidly over the issues that I mentioned for years and years to no avail and yes, I believe that slavery was finally the fuel used to drive the war and garner the support of Europe. Of course Harriet B. Stowe was a great help as well.

Now, do I believe that slavery was one cause of the war? Of course, I do. Do I believe that the North would have been so eager to abolish slavery if we could have worked out our differences on everything else? I do not.

Even the president was clear on the fact that if the Union would glue itself together, he had no interest in abolishing slavery. Do I agree with him on that? Absolutely, Positively, Forever and Always NO!!

[Dave McGowan]

But, as I said earlier, you're not under the pressure that Ol' Abe was ... nore experiencing the times.

I don't agree with him either, while in my home and country that's enjoying the results of 150 years of development.

[Daniel Buck]

Fredda,

OK, so we more or less are in accord on that point.  You're correct, Lincoln's goal, at least initially was, to save the union, and he did not want to exacerbate matters by upsetting slave-holding border states, not to mention your average Yankee, who probably hadn't given much thought to slavery one way or another.  But, as you know, as the war progressed Lincoln changed, slowly but inexorably, on the subject of freeing the slaves.

Last year, by the way, as part of the 150th anniversary of the start of the war, the New York Times launched an ongoing blog feature, "Disunion," here:  http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2010/10/29/opinion/20101029-civi...

At "Disunion," Civil War historians post mini-essays on a variety of Civil War topics, usually re lesser known figures and incidents.  The reader comments are often informative, not to mention occasionally disputatious.

England's role in the Civil war is analyzed in a new book, A World on Free: Britain's Crucial Role in the American Civil War, by Amanda Foreman, reviewed by James McPherson here,

http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2010/10/29/opinion/20101029-civi...

Britain was for a time torn between its anti-slavery policy and its vital need for cotton.  A rock and a hard place: Morality vs. commerce.  Took awhile for that one to be puzzled out.

Cotton, or more precisely, the cotton gin, is argued by many as that without which there would have been no war because slavery was dying out.  A discussion for another day perhaps.

Best, Dan

[Dave McGowan]

Damn, I love this stuff.

Interesting topics and interesting responses with information I couldn't find any where else.

[Fredda Davis Jones]

All good points, Dan!