I look forward to the day when a search for information on so-called black Confederates/Confederate slaves leads people to my site first. A search for "Black Confederate" brings up the first of a nine-part series on Weary Clyburn in the number 3 slot, while a search for "Black Confederates" brings up the blog category, "The Myth of Black Confederates" again in the number 3 slot. In both cases the top two sites are the same. One is the book site for one of the more popular non-scholarly titles and the other site is run by the 37th Texas Cavalry. Both have been around for some time, which means they will be tough nuts to crack.
Update: No so fast. It looks like these rankings are much more volatile that I first thought.
I finally got my hands on a copy of Weary Clyburn's pension application from the North Carolina Department of Archives and History in Raleigh. You may remember that over the summer I did a series of posts on this Confederate slave who was to be honored by a local SCV chapter for his "service" to the Confederacy. The posts generated a great deal of discussion surrounding my assertion that the SCV was distorting the past in order to ignore Clyburn's status as a slave. The SCV held a ceremony in which they invited descendants of Clyburn and also received quite a bit of media attention.
Now that I've had a chance to peruse the pension file it is clear to me that the SCV did nothing less than butcher the history of the war and distort the complex relationship between master and slave. The certification letter from the pension board describes Clyburn as a "body guard" rather than a servant or slave. Later Clyburn is cited for carrying "his master out of the field of fire on his shoulder" and for "personal services for Robert E. Lee", though the nature of that assistance is not discussed. The board also mentions his age and that he "has a wife and foolish boy to support[.]" I wonder if someone can explain that latter reference for me, though my wife just suggested that it must have something to do with his mental health.
On the actual application there is a very telling reference: "that his services were meritorious and faithful toward his master, and the cause of the Confederacy." The fundamental problem with all of this is that Clyburn's voice never appears. The documents provide us with an example of how a white-dominated government bureau handled a black man during the height of Jim Crow. Ultimately, these documents are not about Clyburn. Clyburn's pension was issued owing to the assumption that he was a faithful assistant, which helped to reinforce a system of white supremacy.
Not once is Clyburn referenced for what he was - a slave. We are playing a dangerous game when we begin to treat the past in a way that serves our own narrow interests.
I opened up the latest issue of one of the major Civil War magazines today and noticed a full-page spread announcing the publication of a graphic novel titled Cleburne by Justin Murphy, which tells the story of his plans to arm slaves. You can read an interview with the author here. Check out these choice quotes from that interview:
Ultimately, Cleburne is not so much about African Americans fighting for the Confederacy, as it is the idea of it, and what that idea ultimately cost the South’s most promising military leader. It is the story of a true underdog who challenged the institutions of the very society he fought to defend.
What many today do not know is that there were a large number of Confederate officers and enlisted men who were opposed to slavery. Every one of General Cleburne’s regimental commanders put their names on his proposal to free and arm the slaves. This was a huge career risk for them and they would not have allied themselves with him unless they strongly believed in his idea. So what then were they fighting for if not to preserve slavery? The truth is many Southerners felt they had no choice but to defend their home states, and others were fighting against what they believed to be an over-reaching Federal government (a problem Americans are still dealing with today).
I’m aware of the political-incorrectness of such a subject and I’m also aware of the sensitivity of the issue. Some historians and educators may speak out against this book and accuse me of fabrication, but I’m ready for them. The truth is I’ve probably spent more hours studying the subject than they ever will. As far as speaking at schools, I will admit it can be difficult to stand in front of a classroom full of black students and try to explain why they should care about someone who (they’ve been told) fought for a government that wanted to keep their ancestors enslaved. It’s an uphill battle and I don’t blame them for being a little suspicious. There’s very spotty evidence for black confederate soldiers, but the proof is still there in the eyewitness accounts, and the concept seems to capture public’s imagination. That is why I have used the image in so much of my advertising.
Murphy's responses are a clear reflection of the sloppiness that often accompanies discussion of so-called black Confederates. First, it is unclear to me why we are so fascinated with Cleburne and his proposal to arm slaves. If I remember correctly, he wasn't even the first; Gen. Richard S. Ewell proposed a similar plan in 1861. Also notice the inference that because an officer supported the plan they must have been anti-slavery or that this plan was meant as a first step towards general emancipation. What Murphy never mentions, of course, is that the plan was debated throughout the Confederacy and throughout much of the war, and from what historians can tell it never really had a chance. That the plan was only passed in the final weeks of the war suggests that few white Southerners were able to contemplate such a development. In fact, the passage of the proposal, along with R.E. Lee's support, was meant as a way to save the Confederacy and slavery and not as a step towards general emancipation.
Murphy also falls into the trap of failing to distinguish between the outlines of Cleburne's plan and the experiences of individual slaves who were present with Confederate armies. Their presence had nothing to do with Cleburne. They served as slaves in various capacities and a few may even have picked up a rifle and fired it at a "Yankee" at one point or another. This ought not to be confused with serving officially as Confederate soldiers, although there may even be some exceptions in this case.
One of my readers was kind enough to pass along this historical marker description from Alabama. Another wonderful example of how public spaces were used to reinforce black subservience as Jim Crow gradually became a fact of life for blacks in the South. Interestingly, the war referenced is the Mexican-American rather than American Civil War. Of course, the story may in fact be true. What is interesting, however, is why this story needed to be conveyed to the general public in 1890.
JAMES CANTEY Location: Located on Alabama Highway 165, eight miles south of Phenix City, Alabama, at Fort Mitchell. Marker Dedication or Erection Date: 1890 SIDE 1: Near here was the home of Confederate Brigadier General James Cantey who arrived in 1849 to operate a plantation owned by his father. Prior to coming to Russell County he had practiced law at his birthplace, Camden, South Carolina, and had represented his district in the State Legislature thee for two terms. Cantey fought in the Mexican War and received near mortal wounds. He was left among the dead but was rescued by his body servant whose plans were to bear him home for burial. The slave's detection of a faint sign of life caused heroic action that revived his master. For this deed the servant was offered his freedom, which was refused.
For those of you who love to cite the Virginia pension records as sufficient evidence for significant numbers of Confederate slaves/black Confederates, I highly recommend you read two recent posts by Robert Moore at Cenantua's Blog. [See here and here]
Up for auction is a postcard featuring Levi Miller, an African American / Black Confederate soldier, 1910s era. This is an unusual card, as the caption reads: "Levi Miller, Only Colored Confederate", but there numerous other African Americans who battled for the Confederacy. The card was mailed in Sadler NC by V. McGhinnis (sp?) to Minnie Oxford in Taylorsville NC in 1910. One of the messages notes "cousin Levi age 62 (or 67)" (see 3rd photo). In good condition, a few minor corner creases, light little spots and rubs / scrapes on some edges, but the image of Levi is clear...obviously a photo taken in the 1900s when Levi was older. I believe Levi was a nurse/caretaker for a Confederate officer, officially inducted into his Regiment in the field for some heroics during battle. Buyer pays $1.05 shipping and handling in the US.
But don't let the author's description keep you from engaging in wild speculation. I am told that Miller was present with the Texas brigade at both the Wilderness and Spotsylvania and received a pension from Virginia. This should be sufficient evidence for most people to weave together a narrative that satisfies their deepest needs in Confederate lore.
Once again I want to take the opportunity to thank all of you who have contributed to the discussion concerning Confederate slaves/Black Confederates over the past two weeks. I've learned quite a bit from reading Pete Carmichael's essay and especially from those of you who have left such interesting comments on various posts. This has given me the opportunity to both modify and clarify certain positions on this important subject. Since much of what I've had to say has appeared on this blog and in the comments section of other blogs I thought it might be helpful to spend a few minutes to explain where I am at this point.
I know I've said it before, but it bears repeating that our recent forum concerning black Confederates/Confederate slaves is perhaps the most intelligent discussion on this topic to be found on the Internet. My commentary over the past ten days has clearly paid off in terms of its place in the Google rankings. If you had searched for "black Confederates" six months ago the first post from Civil War Memory would have appeared on page 7. Try searching for "black Confederates" now (7/28/08) and you will find Peter Carmichael's essay on the subject at the bottom of the first page. Search for "black Confederate" and you will get my 9-part series of posts on Weary Clyburn at the bottom of the first page.
It is going to be difficult to move up in the rankings even further given that these sites have been around for quite some time. The 37th Texas site is one of my personal favorites. It's a real whoot. Some of the others reference the shoddy work that went into Pelican's Black Confederates, which is nothing more than a collection of accounts without any serious attempt at analysis. Between my own commentary on the subject and Peter's essay this blog does not claim to offer the final word on Confederate slaves. We have tried to show that the subject is much more complex and that the questions that have tended to be posed are inadequate for understanding the master-slave relationship. Between Peter's essay and the discussion which ensued it is clear that we also need to take a much more critical stance in regard to the range of sources used as well as how those sources are interpreted. I see a couple of research projects coming out of our discussion that could begin to fill in some of the major gaps in our understanding.
It may be a trivial matter to some, but I am delighted that people are now much more likely to find this site when searching this particular subject.
It is with great pleasure that I welcome friend and fellow historian Peter Carmichael to Civil War Memory for a guest post on black Confederates and Confederate slaves. Professor Carmichael is currently the Eberly Professor of Civil War Studies at West Virginia University and has published extensively over the past fifteen years.
Last November my wife and I traveled to Fredericksburg for a special tour organized by NPS historian, John Hennessy. The tour focused specifically on the life of a slave by the name of John Washington whose memoir was recently uncovered and edited by David Blight. In April 1862 Washington crossed the Rapphannock River to the Union army and freedom. A few weeks before the tour Blight contacted descendants of Washingtons and arranged for them to join the tour. I wrote about this back in November, but the highlight of the experience was watching Ruth Washington, his granddaughter, and his great-great-granddaughter, Maureen Ramos learn about their ancestor for the first time. They knew very little about John Washington and knew nothing about his memoir. There were some very powerful moments as we toured what was once Washington's bedroom in what is now a bank as well as the point along the river where he crossed to freedom. That evening we all had dinner and luckily I got to sit next to Ruth and Maureen which allowed me to ask a number of questions. Ruth spoke eloquently, both at dinner and later during an evening ceremony, about what John Washington's story meant to her.
I was struck by her comments on the extent to which her parents went to minimize the history of slavery in her family. Ruth fondly recalled their emphasis on education and the value of self-improvement that was impressed upon her at an early age. She speculated that her grandparents probably wanted to put the past behind them, which is understandable given the challenges that newly-freed slaves faced at a time when choices were limited and discrimination abounded. It seems reasonable to suggest that such a decision was made by many black families. Ruth also suggested that for many black families slavery is seen as a shameful episode and one to be ignored. Add on top of this the fact that much of the history of black Americans, including the history of emancipation and slavery, has been ignored and one can begin to see how stories of black Confederates and the participation of black Americans themselves is possible.
Is it any surprise that Weary Clyburn's descendants took part in this commemoration? Here was an opportunity to identify and celebrate American history as well as their family's history. Clyburn was recognized not as a slave, but as a brave soldier who risked his life on the battlefield and served the great Robert E. Lee. The tragedy in all of this, however, is that Weary Clyburn's past did not have to be distorted for it to be recognized and honored. The point that needs to be made is that Clyburn is a hero. He survived the horrors and humiliation of slavery and war and even managed to make it through the height of the Jim Crow South. If that is not worthy of remembering and commemorating than I don't know what is.
I remember listening to Ruth Washington speak eloquently about how important it was to be able to place her newly-discovered memory of John Washington within her family tree. This man's perseverance and commitment to starting a new life for himself and his family served to strengthen her own sense of connectedness with her family today. It also helped Ruth to understand herself better in terms of how the past came to shape her own outlook on the world. I have little doubt that there is much in Weary Clyburn's life that is worthy of commemorating by both his family and the broader community. Unfortunately, we may never be in a position to be able to explain the details, but we can begin to show respect by being honest
Recent Comments