Echoes of Reconstruction: Un-cancelling Longstreet
Emerging Civil War is pleased to welcome back Patrick Young, author of The Reconstruction Era blog.
Elizabeth Varon’s new book Longstreet: The Confederate General Who Defied the South came out last month and it has already caused quite a stir. The New York Times, Slate, and the Wall Street Journal have all published very positive reviews and several historical journals are coming out with their own take on Professor Varon’s work.
Interestingly, in the last couple of decades, after Confederate “heritage” groups had blocked memorializing Confederate General James Longstreet at Civil War battlefields, the Sons of Confederate Veterans finally put up a statue at Gettysburg for the general but said it was only to memorialize what he did during the war, not, apparently, for the things he did after it. You know, when he endorsed Black suffrage and Black officeholders. Varon’s book opens the way for a study of how one remarkable man’s life illustrates the cancel culture of Confederate negative-hagiography. Elizabeth Varon does a tremendous job tying the life of Longstreet together with the vilification of him by the Lost Cause paladins of the last third of the 19th Century and its adoption by some 20th Century historians.
In March 1867, Longstreet drew criticism when he wrote to the New Orleans newspapers explaining his thoughts for the future of the South:
“There can be no discredit to a conquered people for accepting the conditions offered by their conquerors. Nor is there any occasion for a feeling of humiliation. We have made an honest, and I hope that I may say, a creditable fight, but we have lost. Let us come forward, then, and accept the ends involved in the struggle…. Let us accept the terms, as we are in duty bound to do.”
While this missive attracted some quizzical attention, in June and July of that year, Longstreet’s letters and statements made him the focus of concern by those trying to keep the Confederate spirit alive in the post-war world.
Gen. James Longstreet’s “infamous letter” published in the New Orleans Times on June 8, 1867, in which he called on Southern whites to accept that the Confederacy had lost the war and that it was time to recognize the verdict of battle and to move on. He believed that the South had to come to terms with the new status of African Americans by acknowledging the right of Black men to vote and enjoy other rights and privileges under Federal law.
Longstreet was hardly a racial egalitarian, but he believed, wrongly it turns out, that the right of Blacks to vote could not be taken away and that it was political suicide for white Southerners to continue alienating Black voters by demanding their disenfranchisement. Better for whites, Longstreet believed, to move into the Republican party where they could fight for control of the party in the Southern states than to allow it to be the sole preserve of Northerners. This strategic motivation was ignored by the white press in the South.
The Macon Weekly Telegraph opened its article on Longstreet’s letter on July 26, 1867, with the headline “Good Bye Longstreet.” The Daily Constitutionalist of Augusta Georgia issue on June 12, 1867, was disturbed by the letter and by Longstreet appearing with Republican Senator Henry Wilson. The meeting is characterized as a “Mongrel meeting” because it includes both white and Black attendees. The newspaper says that Wilson is asking three unspeakable things of Longstreet:
Over the next decade, Longstreet would work towards providing African Americans employment on an equal basis, he would endorse Black officeholders, and he would train and command Black troops. The rewriting of Longstreet’s record after Reconstruction and into the 20th Century had more to do with his actions from 1867 to 1877 than with his decisions on July 2 and 3 of 1863.
A couple of questions:
1) Why is “heritage” in quotation marks in ‘Confederate “heritage”‘? Is the author questioning whether they’re actually “heritage” groups? Are they not?
2) Which members of the Sons of Confederate Veterans “said it was only to memorialize what he did during the war”? Perhaps they did, but is the author able to give a citation for this quote? Who said it and when?
Finally, I think it’s pretty rich that some of the same people who are for actively tearing down statues of Confederate soldiers are now criticizing the SCV for taking too long to put UP a statue. But maybe that statement is wrong– perhaps the people who are criticizing the SCV for tardily putting up a statue are also 100% behind all the other Confederate statues and are simply hyper-enthusiastic SCV members. Or maybe I’m just being too sarcastic.
–D. Vazquez
Thanks for enquiring Historyandhorseplaying. In 1991 the statue of Longstreet was backed by the Sons of Confederate division of North Carolina which got the campaign stated. They set up the Longstreet Memorial Fund to raise money and build support for a statue at Gettysburg. I was a recipient of fundraising appeals at that time which only focused on Longstreet’s Civil War term of service. One example of this was the Fund’s Chairman Robert C. Thomas writing to Senator Jesse Helms on Nov. 22, 1991 in which he said that the statue was “not honoring the general for his postwar activities. Instead, Thomas said it was memorializing Longstreet for “his war service.”
I used the term Confederate “heritage” because the groups that I researched do not include “heritage” in their titles, these groups only began to use the term heritage in modern descriptions. Rather than refer to the, for example, “Sons of Confederate Veterans” throughout its history as a Confederate heritage organization, I put the term in quotations to make clear that this was a modern appellation. In the first generation of its existence, even though the Sons modern proponents of the SCV do use the term for the whole history of the group, I sought to quiet the debate of it was proper to call it a Confederate heritage group for all of its 13 decades. I also did not the terms for these groups found in modern academic writing which characterized these groups not as “heritage” organizations but as revanchist or supremacist organizations. While these may be accurate for academic studies, they would ignite those with explosive opinions.
Finally, I did not criticize Confederate “heritage” groups like the SCV for not putting up a statue to Longstreet at Gettysburg earlier. I think that these groups’ actions up to the late 20th Century were entirely consistent their analysis of the war, its causes, and its results. Groups like the SCV and Daughter of the Confederacy had put up many monuments for more than a hundred years consistent with that analysis.
As for your claim that “I think it’s pretty rich that some of the same people who are for actively tearing down statues of Confederate soldiers are now criticizing the SCV for taking too long to put UP a statue,” these were not taken down by my nor have I played any role in their removal. Instead, these were taken down by the people who lived in these communities, or by their municipalities and or states.
Thanks for your inquiry.
Merry Christmas and Happy Wren Day!
Mr. Young-“Merry Christmas and Happy Wren Day”? That’s a new one.
I respect your scholarship, even though I don’t agree with all of your conclusions, but I think your responses to Mr. Vazquez and Mr. Smith were ill considered. The wording was confusing, but you seemed to state to Mr. Vazquez that academics consider modern day Confederate heritage groups “supremacist”, but that you were refraining from saying that because of “explosive” responses. Explosive or not, people do not like being called white supremacists. Also, Mr. Vazquez raised a valid point about people tearing down Confederate statues, but then criticizing Confederate heritage groups for taking too long in erecting a statue to Longstreet. The fact that you did not personally tear down any statues does not respond to that point. Finally, the reference to Longstreet’s post war activities may well be regarding his criticisms of Lee, which are particularly relevant on the Gettysburg battlefield.
In your response to Mr. Smith, you ignore his statement that Longstreet was right. I apologize if I am misrepresenting your views, but you seem to be saying that present day Confederate heritage organizations are responsible for what their predecessors did or did not do over one hundred years ago. Applying that logic, today’s Democratic Party has a lot to answer for. The past Sons of Confederate Veterans were not super duper new and improved extremist MAGA Republicans, or whatever our president is calling his political opponents, but rather they were Democrats. Either both of today’s Sons of Confederate Veterans and the Democratic Party are responsible for what their members did over one hundred years ago, or neither of them is. I think the latter alternative is healthier.
Thank you for responding. As I am traveling and my only option is typing on a tiny phone screen, please excuse any typos that are sure to follow.
A few points:
1) As a statue existing on the battlefield itself (as opposed to a street corner in the middle of a city, for example), wouldn’t it make sense to only honor various soldiers for reasons limited to their wartime service, and furthermore only for their relevant service particularly in only that battle? I served in the military myself, and if a statue were put up on a battlefield for me, I’d rather it be only about my service on that particular day, and not about how I went bankrupt years after I left the service from investing in dot.coms (I didn’t, that was just for effect). Furthermore, the way you describe the letter to Helms, it wasn’t necessarily denoting disparagement of post wartime service. And finally, obviously the purpose of the letter was to elicit contributions from one specific politician, so I’m not sure if we can extrapolate that retroactively to the overall purpose of the statue originally. I was expecting you to say that you had the original official statement of purpose published by the organization in putting up the statue. (Is that extant? If so, that might throw more relevant light on the subject.) And besides, isn’t it a GOOD thing that Longstreet’s statue went up? Or are you against any Confederates being honored at all, anywhere? It sounds a little like someone might be finding fault in an act because it was done ‘for the wrong reasons’ or something similar. Shouldn’t we be glad it happened at all? Perhaps I’m misreading you and if so I do apologize.
2) Yes, since the organization with the words “sons” in it was originally set up for the literal sons of the veterans (and previous to that the veterans themselves), it would have made little sense to call it a “heritage” organization. It would be like calling me “heritage” of my father or something similar. But then, as the generations went on, and membership in the organization is restricted to men who can prove descent from a Confederate veteran, after many generations, it makes more sense to bring the word “heritage” into it.
3) Which “modern academic writing” refers to the Sons of Confederate Veterans as a “supremacist” organization? In other words, WHO specifically does this? Frankly, if this is being said, it is slanderous/libelous. I’m Latino, and a member of the SCV. I for one would like to know who is putting my name in print as a “supremacist”. That sounds legally actionable to me. Supremacist of what? Furthermore, I’m also a member of the Sons of the American Revolution and Society of the War of 1812, because I can prove direct descent from veterans of all these wars (and believe me, it was a LOT of work). Is the SAR and the 1812 group “supremacist” also? Or do the “academics” restrict this adjective mysteriously only to the SCV? Are European organizations restricted to proven descendants of veterans of the Grand Armee (Napoleon’s army) “supremacist”?
Finally on that point, what exactly does the putting up of martial statues by the veterans themselves or by their children/descendants “consistent with their analysis” mean? There is a statue of General Patton at West Point, for example. It’s there not due to any “analysis”, but to honor his military service. There is a school named after John Champe, and it’s named that not due to any “analysis”, but due to his wartime service. Believe me, we Marines don’t go much into “analysis” when we give each other awards and put up statues to each other, it’s pretty cut and dry.
4) In my post I wrote people “who are FOR” the tearing down of statues, not people who physically tear them down. Obviously I wasn’t suggesting that you physically tore any statues down (which is a Felony). I’m not accusing you personally of criminal acts. I said FOR. And I wasn’t referring to you specifically as being one who is for anything either.
I will add that having served as a police officer in a certain city where or near where said illegal activities took place, I can tell you that many of the participants in these activities and others like them were not even from the area, but were from “out of state” (a term which has begun to be thrown around rightly or wrongly in recent years). And, in many of the instances in which statues were TAKEN down (as opposed to what I was referring to in my post, illegal acts) were certainly done extra-democratically, in that no referendum was called of the electorate on the subject. But that is a completely different point irrelevant to this discussion.
Finally, for legal reasons I here state that the above is my personal opinion, and does not necessarily reflect the opinion of any of the organizations I mentioned nor am I attempting to represent my opinions as such nor myself as a representative of any organization.
Once again thank you for responding,
D. Vazquez
This response is to Chris Mackowski. Apparently there is no way to reply to some of the posts so am posting here.
In one of your posts, you write:
“modern Confederate apologists wear a mantel of victimhood when they complain about being “canceled,” even though they come from a cultural/intellectual tradition that began the cancelling in the first place.”
I’m stunned that this statement came from a grown man, much less an academic. What you appear to be saying is “you started it!” Or, going further, “you started it! Therefore you can’t complain, about anything!” I guess if I were a “Confederate apologist” I couldn’t call 911 to report being robbed, because no doubt I’ve robbed someone myself, being a “Confederate apologist”. Ridiculous.
What is a “Confedetate spologost”? Are you suggesting that I, as a member of the SCV, am a “Confederate apologist”, simply because I want to honor my ancestor’s military service long ago? Am I a “Virginia militia apologist” because I’m a member of the Sons of the American Revolution due to my ancestor’s service in the Virginia Militia? Because I’m a member of the Marine Corps Association due to my service, I’m therefore a “Marine Corps apologist”? Hardly, I often criticize various policies and personnel who served in my own branch of service. I wouldnt even call myself “a United States apologist”. I honestly have no idea where you are coming from with this. Or perhaps you are NOT referring to myself and the SCV. It’s unclear to me. Are you creating a straw man, or are you referring specifically and personally to myself?
As for “they come from a cultural/intellectual tradition…” Let’s see, my father is 50% Quechua/Inca and grew up in a tiny South American country… I grew up mainly in Caracas, Venezuela and spoke Spanish primarily until I was well into my teens. So, I guess the “tradition” you’re referring to is Latino kids who grow up in Latin America, playing the “cuatro” (a 4-stringed South American instrument), playing with perinolas (a primitive South American wooden toy), eating arepas and drinking cafe con leche (which is what I did)? That must be the “intellectual tradition” you’re referring to. Obviously I’m funning you, but the generalities and blanket statements you made are ludicrous.
As always, the above are just opinions and should not be construed the opinions of any organizations I mentioned, nor am I attempting to present my opinions as those of said organizations.
I am confident that Ms. Varon’s book will be warmly received in all the “proper” historical circles. She’s sure to be on C-SPAN, and a featured speaker at the Virginia Civil War Museum and other places where the “right” historians come to explain how Civil War heritage and memory needs to be redesigned, so it can finally be proper. I’m sure many book reviewers will flock to her book, because they can then use their reviews of it to make snide comments about defeated Confederates. There are many “proper” historians and history enthusiasts who will use her book as a chance to demonstrate, publicly, just how enlightened they are.
It is also rich to see the term “cancel culture” thrown around when it comes to Longstreet. The modern-day Confederate heritage community knows all about cancel culture. We’re taking bets on which Confederate statue the left will feed next into the furnace that consumed Charlottesville’s statue of Robert E. Lee.
Having said—Longstreet was right. The South was stupid to start the war in the first place and got the licking it deserved. Although, we should all agree that the people who lived in 1861 thought differently than we do today. As L.P. Hartley said, the past is a foreign country. They do things differently there. And, it’s a problem when “proper” historians conflate the politicians who started a war with the men and women who fought it.
As you say, “The modern-day Confederate heritage community knows all about cancel culture.” Their predecessors in the said organizations were experts at “cancel culture” before the term became a modern day meme. If you look at the struggles groups like the SCV and UDC maintained for more than 100 years in elementary and secondary school textbooks to denigrate Longstreet or obscure Black history, you are right that they are experts in “cancelling” those whose views differ from them.
Fair point. And, seeing as modern-day leftists are so readily wielding the cancel culture cudgel themselves, can we take it as a de facto admission from today’s left that the SCV and UDC cancel culture crews of the past didn’t do a bad thing—they were simply wielding the power that they possessed at that moment. I.e., if it was wrong for the SCV and UDC back then, certainly it’s wrong for the elite leftist cancel culture crews now—right?
I think the difference, Don, is that the modern Confederate apologists wear a mantel of victimhood when they complain about being “canceled,” even though they come from a cultural/intellectual tradition that began the cancelling in the first place. That makes it different from the current “leftists” you mention–and I put “leftists” in quotes because that’s a term that gets used over-broadly in a way that (sometimes intentionally) conflates legitimate discussion from one group with the histrionics of another. And I say that as someone who thinks cancel culture is a problem.
In response to Donald Smith’s 4:29PM post: Mr. Smith wrote “if it was wrong for the SCV and UDC back then, certainly it’s wrong for the elite leftist cancel culture crews now—right?” I suppose I don’t understand what you are asking? I wrote about the effort to distort the military record of Longstreet after he publicly stated that he favored respecting the civil rights of Black people as a way of reconciling the people of the United States after the surrender at Appomattox in 1865. Could you clarify what you think I should have an opinion of the “elite leftist cancel culture crews now”?
In response (a second time)* to Patrick Young’s comment of 5:18 PM:
“Could you clarify what you think I should have an opinion of the ‘elite leftist cancel culture crews now’?” You have my permission to whatever opinion you wish to hold—Merry Christmas!
In my opinion, in your comment of 1:59PM, you cast the SCV and UDC as cancel culture groups. My 4:29 response left you puzzled…which I find hard to believe. I think you know exactly what point I was trying to make, but are dodging it.
How can you criticize the SCV and UDC for cancel culture, if modern-day progressives are engaging in the same behavior? Feeding General Lee’s statue into a furnace? Sandblasting Stonewall Jackson’s name off the Old Barracks at VMI? Tearing down a statue in a remote part of a cemetery—a statue that was used to demonstrate to the Vietnamese how America had managed to come to grips with its differences and move forward as a nation?
Chris Mackowski commented on the impact of cancel culture on the ECW blog. Look at the last paragraph.
…………………………………………………….
Our policy at ECW is that writers here write about the things that are of interest to them, so we don’t assign topics or points of view.
I think it speaks volumes that of the folks here who write for ECW, all of whom have professional and/or academic training as historians, no one is interested in embracing any of the traditional Lost Cause ideology. In other words, the professionals know that a lot of the so-called Confederate perspective is a lot of hogwash.
That said, there are a few writers here who DO subscribe to a more southern-centric perspective of the war. Sadly, they don’t write about that because they have legitimate fears about repercussions in their day jobs. The problem they face is that as soon as they speak up on behalf of anything Southern, they’re immediately lumped in with the same people who spout nonsense like “The war wasn’t about slavery” and “Slavery wasn’t all that bad.” It’s hard to speak up on behalf of the South when too many Lost Causers make that terrain radioactive.
………………………………………………………
I suspect that the folks who threatened ECW writers with “repercussions in their day jobs” weren’t from the SCV or UDC. If SCV and UDC cancel culture a hundred years ago was bad, then certainly modern-day cancel culture is bad, too—right?
* The first response disappeared from the ECW blog; let’s see how this one fares.
For what it’s worth, I don’t see a first response from Don Smith to this post, either out front where folks could see it or on the backside where it would be either “pending approval” or in the “deleted” files.
My answer for the first question D. Vazquez would be “heritage” is what they call themselves and it covers many groups.
Happy New Year!
Longstreet was a great General who simply told the truth as he saw it. That it offended so many in the South says more about them than him.
The second sentence of this article states that the Wall Street Journal and the New York Times published “very positive reviews” of this book. He should reread the WSJ review written by the noted Civil War author Peter Cozzens, who is quite critical of the Varon book. The NYT reviewer is slightly more positive but writes of Ms. Varon that “she leans, alas, far more toward historiography than biography.” The author of this article does a disservice in his description of these two book reviews (I have not read the Slate review).
https://emergingcivilwar.com/2021/12/16/the-contested-origins-of-gettysburgs-virginia-monument/
This belongs with my 10:30 PM response. Sorry, but I hit the Enter key too early.
Chris Mackowski to me at 11:25 PM. “For what it’s worth, I don’t see a first response from Don Smith to this post.” That is my error—I should have said it never posted to the blog. I wrote a response, hit the “Reply” key, and didn’t see the response post on the blog. (The same thing happened when I tried three times to post the link to the comment of yours that I quoted). I erred when I used the word “disappeared,” which implies that my first attempt at that response did actually appear on the blog, then vanished. It seems I need to school myself a little more deeply on the ins-and-outs of the ECW blog software.
Chris, as for your 11:20 comment, there is a whiff of conflation in it.
“I put ‘leftists’ in quotes because that’s a term that gets used over-broadly in a way that (sometimes intentionally) conflates legitimate discussion from one group with the histrionics of another.” Couldn’t the same be said of terms like “modern Confederate apologists” and “mantel of victimhood?”
During the Confederate statue-pulling epidemic, it seemed to me that many Civil War academics casually conflated the politicians and plantation owners who started the war with the soldiers who fought it. I’m confident that virtually no Confederates who charged Cemetery Ridge did so primarily to keep the one or two household slaves they might have had at home. (Just as the Federals defending it didn’t join the Union army to end slavery). They fought and died for other things. And, many in the Confederate ranks were illiterate, so they couldn’t have written the speeches, newspaper articles and other primary sources that modern-day academics cite as proof that the Civil War was “about slavery.” It’s as if many Civil War academics think that the Army of Northern Virginia was a Star Wars-type Clone Army, all cloned off of Alexander Stephens. The vast majority of Confederate soldiers and generals fought because their states called them to service, and they feared that the society they lived in would be thrown into turmoil (or even collapse) if slavery were abolished.
It would be nice if the ECW writers could explore the “southern-centric” view of the war. But, as you said back in December of 2021, they have legitimate fears about doing that. So those of us with that southern-centric view of the war will perform that duty ourselves, in the comments. I’m presuming most Civil War academics have the same legitimate fears—so, I guess that Civil War scholarship (and publishing) will have a northern-centric view for a long time to come.
Okay, I’m hitting the “Reply” button now…fingers crossed! 🙂
I see your reply, let me know if you see the one I just posted in reply to another one of yours.
In response to historyandhorseplaying, December 24th at 10:12 AM
“Which ‘modern academic writing’ refers to the Sons of Confederate Veterans as a ‘supremacist’ organization? In other words, WHO specifically does this? Frankly, if this is being said, it is slanderous/libelous.”
If you think that’s bad, take a look at this portion of the Preface of the Final Report of the Naming Commission. The commissioners gave their overall assessment of the extent to which Confederate heritage and Confederate soldiers deserve commemoration by today’s American military (spoiler alert: they don’t) in the Preface. This portion addresses the committee’s judgment of Confederate memorials:
“Most importantly, during the end of the nineteenth century and the start of the twentieth century, the South and much of the nation came to live under a mistaken understanding of the Civil War known as the “Lost Cause.” As part of the “Lost Cause,” across the nation, champions of that memory built monuments to Confederate leaders and to the Confederacy, including on many Department of Defense assets. In every instance and every aspect, these names and memorials have far more to do with the culture under which they were named than they have with any historical acts actually committed by their namesakes.” The Naming Commission was led by two distinguished historians. Its chief historian was from Yale, and the vice-chairman was none other than the Civil War history Kool Kid Ty Seidule.
Common sense tells us that “In every instance and every aspect” means that NONE of those memorials should be honored as memorials to fallen family or friends, or as tools that helped veterans heal from the physical and psychological wounds of war. (Much like the Vietnam Memorial helped Vietnam veterans heal and find peace). This is a slander on the communities that built those memorials. Yes, many viewed them as monuments to the Lost Cause and white supremacy. But, the late 1890s and early 1900s were a time when white supremacy was the prevailing belief in the U.S., and across the Western world. (“White Man’s Burden” was written by Briton Rudyard Kipling. And the United States had just finished crushing the Plains Indians, and forcing their children into reeducation programs to “civilize” them.). And, most importantly, to dismiss the healing power of these memorials for the communities that built them is a slander to Confederate veterans and their descendants.
I can personally attest that Confederate heritage supporters alerted Civil War academics and asked them to comment. If those academics spoke up, meaningfully, and in a way that would have counted, I must have missed it.
I’ll readily admit that I do not have all the information as to how the Civil War academic community worked with the Naming Commission, or reviewed and endorsed its work. I look forward to learning more.
Hello Donald,
Sorry am late in responding, the holidays and related activities have taken my attention, as I’m sure they have yours.
Yes, I’ve never understood the statement “these names and memorials have far more to do with the culture under which they were named than they have with any historical acts”. It strikes me as really odd that some people believe that all statues and monuments to war dead or participants are only about “culture”…. but ONLY Civil War monuments. Unless I’ve missed some of these people saying the same thing about, say, the Vietnam Memorial… the Iwo Jima Memorial… memorials to War for Independence soldiers… memorials to 1812 soldiers… memorials to Korean War dead… etc etc. To be consistent, one would have to be for bringing all these memorials down, because, after all, they all have more to do with the culture, than any historical acts. Yes, the Iwo Jima memorial needs to be brought down because it’s not about the raising of the flag on the island, it’s about culture. As a Marine myself I would say…. right. Makes perfect sense.
As for many academics “commenting”, they don’t, outside of their bubbles and echo chambers. I say MANY, because unlike people you’ve just quoted, I don’t believe in blanket statements. But if my life depended on any of the most prominent academics who champion the positions we’ve been criticizing actually debating their opposition, my life would be short indeed. Do you think many of them would brook debate during their “round table” discussions or seminars? And, you notice that they haven’t responded to our comments here. It’s easy to level blanket accusations and libels/slanders against amorphous, faceless groups. But once INDIVIDUALS start challenging those slanders, because they then become personal slanders, the game changes. A historian once came up with the phrase “most history is boring… until it becomes personal”. (The historian was likely me). For most people, the minutiae of battles in wars are largely irrelevant and uninteresting, until one of two cases becomes fact: Either one PARTICIPATED in said battle or war or service oneself; or, one’s ANCESTORS/family members did. Which is why “heritage” organizations are so important. They tie historical events directly to individual people personally. Which makes it so that ill-conceived comments made by people who have no real skin in the game nor connection to the events being discussed have real consequences, when they are leveled at actual living individuals today, by virtue of the targets of their comments being our family members/ancestors. History then becomes very personal indeed. Which is why I encourage everyone within earshot to find out if you have Confederate ancestors (or ancestors who participated in ANY war, on any side, whether in or out of American history, I don’t care if they served in the Zulus or French Foreign Legion or Stalingrad NKVD), and join “heritage” organizations to honor their service. That way you have much higher motivation to defend the honor of your ancestors, especially if they are currently ‘underdogs’ and under attack in the current culture, than you do of complete strangers with no connection to you whatsoever. And again, I am not speaking for nor even about any specific organization. Some are better than others. And I am speaking specifically and ONLY about military service, in any cause.
I frankly was not expecting this subject matter from this blog or group. When I first was sent notifications on YouTube for “Emerging” Civil War (and subscribed), I thought it was going to be about conditions, events, situations etc in the CURRENT day that may be pointing toward an “emerging” civil war, in the future– near or far. Which I think would be a fascinating subject and is probably likely. So I don’t really understand the usage of the word “emerging” when referring to events that took place 1.5+ centuries ago and which are all largely known already. But, so be it. Anyway, everyone has the right to say what they wish, but what disturbed me was that some of the individuals exhibiting extremely biased (and often incorrect) positions and statements, are also now appearing in a group not dedicated to OPINION, but meant for the preservation of battlefields and cemeteries– a group that I have long supported with time, money, effort, and research– I’ve written a paper on a little-known small Civil War battlefield protected by this group (they did the dedication ceremony and their sign still stands at the site). The statements being made make me wonder if some of these individuals would be good stewards of these battlefields– and, frankly, the bones of my ancestors. I wish it were not the case, but I wouldn’t want some of these individuals within 100 yards of my family’s bones, or even my own, once I’m buried in a military cemetery (which is likely).
I’ve said enough, so will close. Have a Happy New Year.
For my comments on Longstreet, please see my response to the Chris Mackowski post on him that was put up on here on the 15th of December of ‘23.
My comments were posted under that thread on 23-12-23 about 5:51am.
Cheers
Allegedly, Chris M said this in a prior post regarding the lack of “fair shake” to Southerners type posts on ECW: “Our policy at ECW is that writers here write about the things that are of interest to them, so we don’t assign topics or points of view.” Its nice no authors are expected to adhere to a particular view point. Yet, it is quite apparent that we will never see a post here about Yankees abusing Southern civilians, about Christmas in the Confederate army, or about a brave and gallant [fill in the blank Confederate colonel]. Indeed, here is a post – not the first and probably not the last – about how Longstreet was rejected by his community after the war. Where is the post about Pemberton or other Northerners who sided with the South being rejected by their communities? This fear of appealing to white extremists only serves to feed their sense of grievance.
Tom
Authors here write about the topics they’re interested in, and the sources we find, like Chris has said. If you take a look, you’ll certainly find accounts like those you list. ECW began in Fredericksburg – there’s no shortage of content noting the street fighting and looting. Our Fallen Leaders series also noted accounts of fallen Confederates as well as US soldiers, and past years are filled with Christmas and holiday content from both armies.
As far as content, I’ll offer the same feedback I often note: if you want to see a type of specific content you are always welcome to send it in as a guest post. We had a robust list of guest posts this year submitted by a wide range of folks from different backgrounds, and we have a great list of Editorial Board members who help review submissions. If you want to change the content ECW publishes, this is your opportunity to add to the list – we’d be happy to review it soon. Happy Holidays!