What Less-Than-Authentic Things Can We Embrace?

[crowley_greene]

I've just dropped in on this forum after re-watching some scenes from the 1989 movie "Glory."

A few times during the movie my thoughts turned to a few reenactments I have attended over the past years in which I noticed a sprinkling of black soldiers mingled in the Union ranks. Of course, this is not authentic -- there was no racial integration in the ranks.

But how do we decide when to embrace things that are not authentic? Personally, I have felt thrilled to see black reenactors in the ranks, incorrect though it is. How can we say, "No, you cannot reenact unless you can find an all-black company, with white officers. That's the only correct way."

I just hear and read some criticism of "wrong" things in reenacting, and I was just wondering when there are times that we should welcome "inaccuracies" (even if they mislead the uninformed public some).

Murray Therrell

[tompritchett]

Because we literally beat to death the issue of women in ranks, I would greatly appreciate it if that subject was not raised yet again here. There are many other issues that this thread can address such as members of other non-white races in ranks and early war specialty war impressions still being seen in late war events, etc.

[crowley_greene]

Because we literally beat to death the issue of women in ranks, I would greatly appreciate it if that subject was not raised yet again here. There are many other issues that this thread can address such as members of other non-white races in ranks and early war specialty war impressions still being seen in late war events, etc.
Yes, thank you for adding a little clarity to my intent, Tom. :)

It seems as though sometimes we should make some concessions, and how do we decide what that delicate balancing point is?

Murray Therrell

[huntdaw]

Murray,

Some years ago University of Central Arkansas had a USCT unit. I think there were some black reenactors from Texas that would fall in with them too. Do you know if they are still doing that?

[crowley_greene]

Murray, Some years ago University of Central Arkansas had a USCT unit. I think there were some black reenactors from Texas that would fall in with them too. Do you know if they are still doing that?
No, I wasn't aware that such a unit ever even existed here in Arkansas. Interesting -- I would like to find out more about that.

Murray Therrell

[reb64]

I've just dropped in on this forum after re-watching some scenes from the 1989 movie "Glory."

A few times during the movie my thoughts turned to a few reenactments I have attended over the past years in which I noticed a sprinkling of black soldiers mingled in the Union ranks. Of course, this is not authentic -- there was no racial integration in the ranks.

While not fully integrated, wouldnt perhaps an occational colored soldier have fallen in? Even if not, few sprinkled black men in the ranks isnt such a big del, more welcoming than anyhting else.

[Dunn Browne]

I've just dropped in on this forum after re-watching some scenes from the 1989 movie "Glory."

A few times during the movie my thoughts turned to a few reenactments I have attended over the past years in which I noticed a sprinkling of black soldiers mingled in the Union ranks. Of course, this is not authentic -- there was no racial integration in the ranks.

But how do we decide when to embrace things that are not authentic? Personally, I have felt thrilled to see black reenactors in the ranks, incorrect though it is. How can we say, "No, you cannot reenact unless you can find an all-black company, with white officers. That's the only correct way."

I just hear and read some criticism of "wrong" things in reenacting, and I was just wondering when there are times that we should welcome "inaccuracies" (even if they mislead the uninformed public some).

Murray Therrell

I do have a bit of a problem with this. Many reenactors claim that we are educating the public and too much of the public that attend reenactments believe what they see there is how it was. So are we telling the public that we had integrated units during the war? That colored troops fought at the Battle of Gettysburg?

I love to see colored units at events when it is correct. I would be delighted to see a colored unit other than the 54th Mass. at an event for a change. However, if we are going to educate the public about the ACW we should try to be as accurate as we can be.

[Huck Finn]

Talk about under represented! Had the pleasure of standing next to some wonderful 54th Mass gentlemen at the 135 Crater memorial. Somehow, they have disappeared from the face of the earth. While I have attempted to contact them several times and using several methods, no luck.

I have served with a Black Man in a Confederate unit. We can let that one simmer. It was a great experience as he had documentation from his ancestors and felt very strongly that the particular impression was not only viable but needed.

While the "authenticity" point is well taken, it may not be a question of authenticity. It is more a question of decency. As far as I am concerned, there is no issue.

[indguard]

It is a touchy subject.

I would love to see a black unit (WITH white officers) at any local non-battle specific events.

However, it has been my experience that black civil war reenactors don't want to interact with everyone else for fear of "the race thing" becoming a problem on the field. And nothing could ruin an event faster than some fool yelling "Ni_ _ er" on the field in front of the crowd and everyone. That is, I am sure, what they fear... and who can blame them? "Authentic" as it is to use the word, it simply would not work today for anyone. The crowd wouldn't understand, the black reenactors would rightfully be angry, no one would find it amusing.

And, don't think it can't happen. Heck, I get mad enough when one side or the other starts calling names to the enemy across the field. Add in the racial element and we have a recipe for disaster.

I don't know. It just seems awfully touchy.

WTH
The Can'tweallgetalong Mess

[Huck Finn]

Warner:

Sad but true. It can be safely said that the use of that kind of epitaph, even in a historical setting, is intolerable. What does it say that you would be concerned about such a thing and I must agree? Tragic.

[TheColorBearer]

I've just dropped in on this forum after re-watching some scenes from the 1989 movie "Glory."

A few times during the movie my thoughts turned to a few reenactments I have attended over the past years in which I noticed a sprinkling of black soldiers mingled in the Union ranks. Of course, this is not authentic -- there was no racial integration in the ranks.

But how do we decide when to embrace things that are not authentic? Personally, I have felt thrilled to see black reenactors in the ranks, incorrect though it is. How can we say, "No, you cannot reenact unless you can find an all-black company, with white officers. That's the only correct way."

I just hear and read some criticism of "wrong" things in reenacting, and I was just wondering when there are times that we should welcome "inaccuracies" (even if they mislead the uninformed public some).

Murray Therrell

I really don't care if your black, white, his-panic, purple with white polka dots, as long as you are safe, and can take a hit that is all that really matters to me. Yea it may not look right, but getting someone out there to give the show some numbers is a big help, even better if he is carrying a 3-Band and he knows how drill.


Todd Burnett

[Duff]

I'm touching this one with a 20 foot stick

[WestTN_reb]

I love to see colored units at events when it is correct. I would be delighted to see a colored unit other than the 54th Mass. at an event for a change.
We had a group come to the annual Fort Pillow event from Maryland a couple of years ago. Their unit, IIRC, was the 3rd US Colored Infantry. They were a bit nervous around us Tennessee and Mississippi boys. After we brought them a high octane;) peace offering, they admitted they were nervous about the whole race thing coming South. By the end of the event, we were cutting up like we'd been together for years.

[Radar]

It is a touchy subject.

I would love to see a black unit (WITH white officers) at any local non-battle specific events.

However, it has been my experience that black civil war reenactors don't want to interact with everyone else for fear of "the race thing" becoming a problem on the field. And nothing could ruin an event faster than some fool yelling "Ni_ _ er" on the field in front of the crowd and everyone. That is, I am sure, what they fear... and who can blame them? "Authentic" as it is to use the word, it simply would not work today for anyone. The crowd wouldn't understand, the black reenactors would rightfully be angry, no one would find it amusing.

And, don't think it can't happen. Heck, I get mad enough when one side or the other starts calling names to the enemy across the field. Add in the racial element and we have a recipe for disaster.

I don't know. It just seems awfully touchy.

WTH
The Can'tweallgetalong Mess

Come to Central Kentucky and fall in with/next to the 12th United States Colored Heavy Artilley from Camp Nelson (www.12thUSCHA.com). They will gladly interact with your unit and the spectators. I helped them get started several years ago and they are a great bunch of guys.;)

[indguard]

Sad but true. It can be safely said that the use of that kind of epitaph, even in a historical setting, is intolerable. What does it say that you would be concerned about such a thing and I must agree? Tragic.

I hate to say it, but it is true. Some nitwit somewhere on a reenactment battle field WILL use the word, he WILL be loud about it and then when you yell at him he'll look at you with that uncomprehending look, saying "Well, garsh, why ya mad at me? They really did call 'em that."

Unfortunately, it is a word that just would not be understood at an event no matter how "authentic" it is. Like I said, just look at the stupid comments you'll hear from Yanks to Rebs and back again between white reenactors for examples of inappropriate words. Then throw the race matter in on top of that lack of good sense?

I shudder to think.

I maintain that it would even be hard to use the "N" word in a strictly controlled authentic scenario, even if you took pains to let all participants and public viewers what was going to happen. Someone will STILL make a stink and cause a scene.

(By the way, it's epithet not epitaph. Epitaph is what you write on a tombstone. Epithet is name calling. I used to mix them two up, too.)

[hanktrent]

I saw the integration problem handled with what I thought was a decent compromise at an event in a historic village maybe 10 years ago.

There were mostly white Union soldiers with one or two USCT present. The USCT had their own living history set-up to interpret to the public. When the Confederates attacked, as expected, the white soldiers fell into line while the long roll played. The USCT men hung back as if they were waiting for orders from the rest of their regiment. The officer of the white regiment, quickly trying to mount a defense and obviously in need of every man he could get, saw them, asked where their officers were and when they gave a puzzled gesture, yelled for them to fall in at the end of the line.

No idea if that would have been his historic mindset, but it allowed the USCT men to participate in the battle while still pointing out to the public that it was unusual for them to fight in an integrated way.

Another example I saw was an event with a lone USCT representative, similar situation. As the white infantrymen formed up, he ran up to the officer in front of the public from off-site, saluted, and loudly explained he'd been separate from his regiment and wanted to report for duty but what should he do? The officer made a face and grudgingly told him to fall in with his men for now.

Again, no idea if that would be the historically accurate response, but it alerted the public to the fact that it wasn't normal for one black man to be fighting with a white regiment, while allowing him to participate in the battle.

Hank Trent
hanktrent@voyager.net

[Micah Trent]

Come to Central Kentucky and fall in with/next to the 12th United States Colored Heavy Artilley from Camp Nelson (www.12thUSCHA.com). They will gladly interact with your unit and the spectators. I helped them get started several years ago and they are a great bunch of guys.;)

IMO, they are one of the best artillery units out there, if not the best.

[RJSamp]

I just hear and read some criticism of "wrong" things in reenacting, and I was just wondering when there are times that we should welcome "inaccuracies" (even if they mislead the uninformed public some).

Murray Therrell

We rarely if ever have the correct weapons for the event for the unit impression. WeaponS are expensive.

We rarely if ever have the correct uniforms with the correct amount of 'wear' for the event for the unit impression. Whether the correct weave, weft, and handstitching for a rookie impression (say the 105th Ohio at Perryville) where our boys show up in the same uniform they wore at the 125th's (and it looks it)....brown Hardee hats (they should be black, even if dust laden).... the generic Federal Uniform (pretty tough coming up with a Frock Coat or Zouave impression in numbers it seems)...or a general reissue look where the veteran's uniforms look , well, uniform.....even after 60 days in the field. UniformS are expensive.

Numbers and scale of rank to numbers....it would be nice to have 200 rifles representing a 500 rifle regiment...but even at the big events we rarely come up with this. Even when we have the opportunity to go man for man (say the Hayes/Hoke assault on East Cemetery Hill scenaria at GAC) we simply can't/don't do it.

Tents and Wagons....even if the Campaign Scenario calls for it, we often time have trouble coming up with the correct tenting and camping look. There's a great quote that I was reading the other day.....VI Corps, Army of the Potomac, pursuit of the ANV after the battle of Gettysburg...basically the Division column pulled off the road to bivouac for the night, and a veritable tent city, "as always", sprang up in an instant. Tents and Wagons are expensive, and we're rarely in shape enough to carry a shelter half 15 miles a day and set up a dog tent with a comrade.

Our reproduction equipment tends to be manufactured "Too Well"...whether it's the lack of shoddy in a Tim Bender $100 hat, an adjustable receiver on a bugle for $400, or urethane on a gun stock.

Lots of inaccuracies that we've settled for....and are 'acceptable'.

[packrat]

This is truly a touchy subject is it not. If any members mistakenly went to the wrong event in July. They might have noticed the Color Guard Saturday afternoom at the Peach Orchard, real South Carolinians, with Real Colors with real equiptment, with one gentleman with a Real nice Tan. Who was embraced by most of the officers and staff and a certain General who spent quite a bit of time with said color guard . A moment we embraced and touched on. heck we've been together shoulder to shoulder for years, friendship and pride should cross any line in the sand togeather. And isn't it about putting on your best impression at all times for the love of the hobby and memory of those before us why we should be here. Trying to keep it real here at the 7th South Carolina saltnpeppamess.

[johnerys]

I think it is a personal preference, some of us want everything as it was, and some acept more farb items.
While putting together my photographer impression I started out trying to look as accurate as possible, then I learned that some compromises would have to be made. I obviously dont have a wagon to carry equiptment, and of course photgraphers never took battlefield shots. Most people accept this, some do not, and they in all likelyhood never will. I try to be as accurate as possible, at least in appearance, and improve my impression, but all that really matters in the end is if I am happy with it.

[crowley_greene]

and of course photgraphers never took battlefield shots.
I'll try not to wander off the subject of this thread, but maybe my observation is in keeping with things.

I was thinking I had seen at least one authentic photograph of Union reserve troops, and in the far distance of the photograph it seemed I could make out what appeared to perhaps have been battle activity (blurs of smoke). Of course, behind-the-lines photographs might not really qualify as battlefield shots. I wish I could find a link to that period photograph on the Internet. I don't even remember what book I saw it in now.

[M E Wolf]

Dear Crowley_Greene;

Have you by chance looked at the National Archive's Civil War photos?

www.archives.gov/research/civil-war/photos/

There are contact numbers; to which you may be able to find the particular photo you seek.

Just some thoughts.

Respectfully submitted for consideration,
M. E. Wolf

[hanktrent]

and of course photgraphers never took battlefield shots. Most people accept this, some do not, and they in all likelyhood never will. I try to be as accurate as possible, at least in appearance, and improve my impression, but all that really matters in the end is if I am happy with it.

I don't understand the part in bold. I get all the rest: do what you want at events that allow it, we all have limitations of time and money, we all do what makes us happy, etc.

But you know "they" didn't take action shots with period cameras and yet you choose to do it, not because it's unaffordable or impossible to limit yourself to static shots, but because you just don't want to. How do you reconcile that with also claiming that you try to be as accurate as possible? Or do you mean "in appearance" to mean only the individual artifacts/clothing, and not how you actually appear overall (i.e. where you are, what you're doing) during the event?

Hank Trent
hanktrent@voyager.net

[Danny]

The most meticulous authentic campaigner can always be "shot down" in some aspect of his or her impression. Always. Every time.

Even if if near naked and rolled in dirt, there's those pesky modern fillings in their teeth, or the fact no supply wagons accompany their unit, etc. etc.

So it's quite safe to say that each of us is legitimate in the level of impression we choose to make. More important by far is knowing and espousing accurate information based on period accounts regardless of how our impression reflects that account in detail.

Unexcuseable is espousing inaccurate information based on heresay or the current fad among the authentics - i.e. the vest vs. no vest nonsense etc.

In my opinion, of course.

Dan Wykes

[thpritchett]

I was thinking I had seen at least one authentic photograph of Union reserve troops, and in the far distance of the photograph it seemed I could make out what appeared to perhaps have been battle activity (blurs of smoke). Of course, behind-the-lines photographs might not really qualify as battlefield shots. I wish I could find a link to that period photograph on the Internet. I don't even remember what book I saw it in now

Did they have the technology to have short enough exposure times that a semi-close shot of an ongoing battle be more than a series of blurs from all the movement? Not being a photography bug, I really don't know the answer and am asking a serious question here.

[Bummer]

Getting back to the subject at hand, one acceptable thing I have seen is the slightly handicaped in the ranks. We ourselves had a one armed man--he could hold his musket up with his stump and had a frock coat made with a slightly shorter sleeve. He was a good man and one never thought of him being disabled. I'm sure there are others like the men with false teeth or other slight 'defects' that would have precluded a man from being in the army then. I think anything medical or health related is overlooked.
I got into an argument over this issue once with someone who was totally adament about not allowing anyone not 'army physically correct' being allowed to play, I asked what if one of US got in a wreck or something and became slightly (not catastophicly) disabled--would he have to quit? Yes, he said. I then said to him I fervently hoped it was he who got the disability then.

My personal preferencial guidelines are quite simple: The way I personally see it is anything that can be changed and needs to be, should be seen to before he should be welcome around me.
However, anything that cannot be changed I'd leave alone and welcome that person to 'play'--I will cheerfully overlook it, after all we are all doing this for our own satisfaction in some way. Who are we to deny another's search for that satisfaction. No group is going to be so perfect that such things cannot be overlooked.
If he can do something about it he should, if he cannot, I will gladly meet him halfway.

Oh, and one last thing about ethnic folks. When at Poplar Grove National Cemetery among the Union dead of Petersburg, say hello to Juan Hernandez. He's buried fairly near the entrance about halfway to the first trees.

[40AcreMule]

If you see a white unit with a couple of apparently black soldiers in the ranks with apparently white soldiers, why do you automatically assume that they are black soldiers incorrectly serving in a white unit? They could also be a company of mostly mullato USCTs.

According to the 1860 census, 39 percent of freedmen in Southern cities were mulattoes (light skinned, mixed-race). Among urban slaves, the proportion of mulattoes was 20 percent. One out of every four black people in a Southern city was a mulatto. The percentage was similar in the ranks of the USCTs. Free mullatoes were also fairly common in the North. Anyone who has ever seen the films "Cotton Club" or "Imitation of Life" knows about blacks who successfully passed for white during the days of segregation.

On the other side of the coin, if you read Bell Wiley's "Life of Billy Yank" you will find some references to dark-complexioned white men serving in the ranks of white units who raised and eyebrow or two.

With the above in mind there should be no issue about apparently black Union reenactors serving in apparently white Union reenactment units or vice versa.

A "redbone" sends.

[johnerys]

I don't understand the part in bold. I get all the rest: do what you want at events that allow it, we all have limitations of time and money, we all do what makes us happy, etc.

But you know "they" didn't take action shots with period cameras and yet you choose to do it, not because it's unaffordable or impossible to limit yourself to static shots, but because you just don't want to. How do you reconcile that with also claiming that you try to be as accurate as possible? Or do you mean "in appearance" to mean only the individual artifacts/clothing, and not how you actually appear overall (i.e. where you are, what you're doing) during the event?

That pretty well sums it up. If I was completely acurate I would be stuck in camp taking portraits, which would be as much fun as portraying a quartermaster, or garrison trooper. That is the part I choose to accept that is not realistic.

[rebel_ryan2002]

Getting back to the subject at hand, one acceptable thing I have seen is the slightly handicaped in the ranks.


As I posted before I have a shorter right leg that requires a brace, but it has never stopped me from reenacting, and have always been proud to see others with disabilities in the ranks. And no one has ever told me I can't reenact because that brace is not "authentic". In fact I think it adds to my impression as a wounded soldier still in line.

[indguard]

I've always known that BOTH of my legs are shorter than everyone else's! Well, not everyone, but many.

WTH
The gimmethegoodfoot Mess

["Doc" Nelson]

They were a bit nervous around us Tennessee and Mississippi boys. After we brought them a high octane;) peace offering, they admitted they were nervous about the whole race thing coming South.
See, I am still trying to figure this out (not your statement, just the whole issue in general)??? IF you read history books, did not the North harbor a disgust for African Americans and, did not care to see them free (more so than the South)? Now mind you, the 13th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution was not ratified until "December of 1865" . . that's right, after the Civil War. Now, given the fact that slavery was not abolished by the U.S. GOVERNMENT until the ratification of the 13th Amendment in December of 1865, why is it you never hear about that in history books . . or, hear anyone speak of it?? And yet, it's always the South that's associated with "this" hatred. The disgust (or hatred . . however you wish to put it) was more prevalent in the North than the South. Even Abraham Lincoln made such statements, these statements are no secret. This issue pi**es me off more than anything else. Most of my friends are African Americans . . that's right, and I am honored to have my friends! When we have sat down and "discussed" the period, my friends were surprised. They never knew most of the things I had told them . . and, I presented facts along with our discussion.

Now, I probably have you scratching your head right now . . don't I? Well my point is this, just the thought of the word alone has put the fear in everyone. And, given its the 21st Century, people are more prone to lawsuits now, then ever before. ESPECIALLY when it comes to Civil Rights violations. We must teach history CORRECTLY. No, I'm not saying let's put 1 or 2 women in uniform in every unit. Nor, am I saying that if an African American comes up to you during an event, expresses his desire to portray an Infantryman that, you should put him in a uniform and have him fall in. Nor am I saying anyone should use derogatory names, just because they were used during the War. Just as with anything else, make sure it's accurate for the impression. There's nothing wrong with someone of African American descent portraying a cook or an Officer's servant, etc. It's historically correct, is it not??? That's not racial discrimination . . it's history. For goodness sake, use your common sense.


I hate to say it, but it is true. Some nitwit somewhere on a reenactment battle field WILL use the word, he WILL be loud about it and then when you yell at him he'll look at you with that uncomprehending look, saying "Well, garsh, why ya mad at me? They really did call 'em that."

Unfortunately, it is a word that just would not be understood at an event no matter how "authentic" it is. Like I said, just look at the stupid comments you'll hear from Yanks to Rebs and back again between white reenactors for examples of inappropriate words. Then throw the race matter in on top of that lack of good sense?
I remember an event I attended in 1989. I was with the 32nd Virginia, Co. H and, we were at Fort Branch (in Hamilton, North Carolina) . . while there, we had seen one African American show up in a Confederate uniform. Needless to say, it did not go over well with some guys from Alabama. They called him names (of which, I will not repeat here) and, even spat on him. Their intention was NOT historical, they just did not approve of it. They even went to the point of saying something like "that's a disgrace to the uniform". Well, this really pi**ed us off. We set out immediately (now mind you, there are about 20 of us clad in Confederate uniforms). We had found out that, the organizers had put this guy in a blue uniform and, sent him to the Yankee camp. As we approached him, his eyes grew larger and larger (as you can see fear on his face). My CO introduced himself and, then the rest of us. We apologized for the IGNORANCE of "others" out there and, advised him that, if anyone else bothered him, to come let us know. For the remainder of the weekend, we had a new found friend and, I am honored to have met him. At least he had the balls enough to show up in Confederate uniform. Now, was it historically correct . . no. But that doesn't give someone the right to be an a**hole about it. Especially, because he wore a Confederate uniform. My 3rd Great Grandfather was a Confederate Officer, I didn't get pi**ed off about it. I was actually fired up to see him in gray :D.

There are several accounts of African Americans fighting within Confederate ranks. No, this was not condoned. However, these accounts seem more along the lines of a sporadic thing. African Americans had not been permitted to raise (for lack of a better term) an official regiment in the Confederate Army (well, at least not until March of 1865), there were several that "defended their home" just as a white Southerner did.


IMO, they are one of the best artillery units out there, if not the best.
Hear, hear ;-) . I had the honor of "observing" them in action (per se), during the 144th Perryville. Being a Staff Officer, I had the ability to move about a bit. As I did this, I kind of kept an eye on them, as they unhurled their fire onto the Confederate position. It was awesome to see how well they worked with each other . . not to mention how they "fell in" along side white Artillery units.

[hendrickms24]

As I posted before I have a shorter right leg that requires a brace, but it has never stopped me from reenacting, and have always been proud to see others with disabilities in the ranks. And no one has ever told me I can't reenact because that brace is not "authentic". In fact I think it adds to my impression as a wounded soldier still in line.

Do any of the disabled reenactors portray the VRC? I think that would be a great way to show the public an aspect or the ACW that most people have do not know.

[hanktrent]

Edited to add: well, for some reason, it says "html code off" and I can't figure out how to fix it. Hopefully this'll make sense anyway.


Now mind you, the 13th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution was not ratified until "December of 1865" . . that's right, after the Civil War. Now, given the fact that slavery was not abolished by the U.S. GOVERNMENT until the ratification of the 13th Amendment in December of 1865, why is it you never hear about that in history books . . or, hear anyone speak of it?? And yet, it's always the South that's associated with "this" hatred.

Obviously "never" is meant to be an exaggeration, since it's hardly a secret. But in a brief summary of the war and the history of slavery, it's kind of moot, isn't it? In 1865, thanks to the Emancipation Proclamation and some political maneuvering like what was required for West Virginia to be admitted, slavery was already illegal in all but a handful of border states.

Most of the northern states, and even some of the border states where slavery was still legal, ratified the amendment in February of 1865, but what was holding it up were mostly southern and other border states and a few western ones. South Carolina, Alabama, North Carolina and Georgia finally put it over the top by ratifying it toward the end of 1865. If not for them, the border-states slaves could have been free months earlier. The last post-1860s hold-outs, some of whom voted against it at the time and didn't ratify it until the 20th century as a moot political gesture, were Texas, Delaware, Kentucky and Mississippi.

As far as racism against free blacks... I don't know that I'd say the antebellum dislike of them was greater in the north than the south. I think it'd be a pretty close call, with lots of legal restrictions in both places: http://books.google.com/books?pg=PA359&lr=&id=0XUFAAAAQAAJ&as_brr=0&output=html .

I think what history remembers are the outliers, those who were exceptions in either direction, and they do tend to cluster geographically, with the outspoken abolitionists mostly in the north and the outspoken slavery advocates in the border states and south.

Hank Trent
hanktrent@voyager.net

[hiplainsyank]

See, I am still trying to figure this out (not your statement, just the whole issue in general)??? IF you read history books, did not the North harbor a disgust for African Americans and, did not care to see them free (more so than the South)? Now mind you, the 13th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution was not ratified until "December of 1865" . . that's right, after the Civil War. Now, given the fact that slavery was not abolished by the U.S. GOVERNMENT until the ratification of the 13th Amendment in December of 1865, why is it you never hear about that in history books . . or, hear anyone speak of it?? And yet, it's always the South that's associated with "this" hatred. The disgust (or hatred . . however you wish to put it) was more prevalent in the North than the South. Even Abraham Lincoln made such statements, these statements are no secret. This issue pi**es me off more than anything else. Most of my friends are African Americans . . that's right, and I am honored to have my friends! When we have sat down and "discussed" the period, my friends were surprised. They never knew most of the things I had told them . . and, I presented facts along with our discussion.

.

Sir, the facts clearly bear out that most white Union troops who were were indifferent to slavery, when encountering it for the first time, usually moved to an anti-slavery position. They understood that slavery was the root cause of the war and although most were still shockingly racist by today's standards, they became anti-slavery from both utilitarian (end slavery to help end the war) and idealistic (even dogs have some rights) reasons.

The historian Chandra Manning has put a lot of work into researching period accounts, letters, diaries, newspaper articles, has really fleshed out what soldiers north and south really thought about the causes of the war and their opinions on slavery. The reaserch evaluates what the soldiers said at the time. I cannot recommend this work highly enough to those who really wish to have the most comprehensive recent work on this issue. It is in depth and not intended to uplift or degrade either side, only to understand those people. Her book came out last year, called _What This Cruel War Was Over_ andshe has also published a couple times in _North and South Magazine_. Her most recent article was just earlier this year on just this subject (Union soldiers' opinions on slavery), entitled "Demystifying the Union Soldier" in Volume 10, No. 5 (March 2008 ).

And as to your assertion that northerners are more racist than southerners, that's a laugh. People all over are racist still, north and south, with have heard of plenty of experiences by people in the south, too.

Or, if you are simply talking about period treatment of blacks, you don't think that free blacks were kept in their place by groups such as the slave patrols? Do you really think that free blacks felt comfortable walking a road at night? Do you really honestly imagine that slavery was not a societal and cultural institution as more as, and maybe more than, an economic one, by the time of the Civil War, with all the slave patrols and fights in the courts over fugitive slave laws? You don't honestly think that the Jim Crow laws of the post-reconstruction south were just invented in the 1870s do you? They had their roots in the slavery-era culture and society.

[tompritchett]

I could not figure how to fix it either Hank. Sorry.

Tom

[Ross L. Lamoreaux]

Thank you Ms. Grimshaw for a well thought-out post, and thank you for providing research to back your claim. The only points that I differ with you are regarding the claim that most northern soldiers who were indifferent eventually became anti-slavery, and that racism is more prevelant in the south. As for point one, I believe that it was wholly regional as to those who were swayed to the point of being anti-slavery. Northeast and Easterners were more likely to already be anti-slavery by percentage, whereas a larger number of westerners (today's midwest of Ohio, Indiana, Illinois, etc truly didn't care for abolition as a major cause. A period diary of a soldier from the 37th Indiana, a rural farmboy, stated that he and his comrades didn't care a bit what happened to the plight of the coloreds, as they knew their status would change little after the war whether they were free or remained slaves. That is a common theme I get while researching northern soldiers, at least from the western troops. As for racism, it rears its ugly head all over the country, north, south, east or west. Again, today's midwest, a holdover from its mid victorian ideals, has racism to a far more terrible degree than most parts of the south I've lived in. This is coming from my experience of growing up in a county in Indiana where there was one black citizen of the entire county, and he was adopted and chased out before he turned 20. I've spent 25 plus years all over the south, and I rarely see wholesale racism like that I saw firsthand in the midwest. Unfortunately, racism is still everywhere, some more prevelant than others when it comes to locale.

["Doc" Nelson]

It's not so much racism that I'm talking of about in today's society. What I'm trying to get at is, when people talk of "the cause of the Civil War", they automatically say "slavery" was the only cause.

Historians have disputed for many years that, slavery was the only root cause for secession. Now, historians know the War had many causes . . and yes, slavery was ONE, not the only ONE. They note, for example, that the northern and southern states had been drifting apart because of sectional differences, dissimilarities between the two areas in culture and economy. They also point to ongoing tensions between the federal government and the states over the extent of the federal government's powers. They mention the disorder in the American political party system of the 1850's. Yet slavery emerges as the most serious single cause. All explanations for the causes of the war have always involved or revolved around that issue.

Another item to look at is, the Emancipation Proclamation:

The Emancipation Proclamation
January 1, 1863

By the President of the United States of America:

A Proclamation.



Whereas, on the twenty-second day of September, in the year of our Lord one thousand eight hundred and sixty-two, a proclamation was issued by the President of the United States, containing, among other things, the following, to wit:


"That on the first day of January, in the year of our Lord one thousand eight hundred and sixty-three, all persons held as slaves within any State or designated part of a State, the people whereof shall then be in rebellion against the United States, shall be then, thenceforward, and forever free; and the Executive Government of the United States, including the military and naval authority thereof, will recognize and maintain the freedom of such persons, and will do no act or acts to repress such persons, or any of them, in any efforts they may make for their actual freedom.



"That the Executive will, on the first day of January aforesaid, by proclamation, designate the States and parts of States, if any, in which the people thereof, respectively, shall then be in rebellion against the United States; and the fact that any State, or the people thereof, shall on that day be, in good faith, represented in the Congress of the United States by members chosen thereto at elections wherein a majority of the qualified voters of such State shall have participated, shall, in the absence of strong countervailing testimony, be deemed conclusive evidence that such State, and the people thereof, are not then in rebellion against the United States."



Now, therefore I, Abraham Lincoln, President of the United States, by virtue of the power in me vested as Commander-in-Chief, of the Army and Navy of the United States in time of actual armed rebellion against the authority and government of the United States, and as a fit and necessary war measure for suppressing said rebellion, do, on this first day of January, in the year of our Lord one thousand eight hundred and sixty-three, and in accordance with my purpose so to do publicly proclaimed for the full period of one hundred days, from the day first above mentioned, order and designate as the States and parts of States wherein the people thereof respectively, are this day in rebellion against the United States, the following, to wit:


Arkansas, Texas, Louisiana, (except the Parishes of St. Bernard, Plaquemines, Jefferson, St. John, St. Charles, St. James Ascension, Assumption, Terrebonne, Lafourche, St. Mary, St. Martin, and Orleans, including the City of New Orleans) Mississippi, Alabama, Florida, Georgia, South Carolina, North Carolina, and Virginia, (except the forty-eight counties designated as West Virginia, and also the counties of Berkley, Accomac, Northampton, Elizabeth City, York, Princess Ann, and Norfolk, including the cities of Norfolk and Portsmouth[)], and which excepted parts, are for the present, left precisely as if this proclamation were not issued.



And by virtue of the power, and for the purpose aforesaid, I do order and declare that all persons held as slaves within said designated States, and parts of States, are, and henceforward shall be free; and that the Executive government of the United States, including the military and naval authorities thereof, will recognize and maintain the freedom of said persons.



And I hereby enjoin upon the people so declared to be free to abstain from all violence, unless in necessary self-defence; and I recommend to them that, in all cases when allowed, they labor faithfully for reasonable wages.


And I further declare and make known, that such persons of suitable condition, will be received into the armed service of the United States to garrison forts, positions, stations, and other places, and to man vessels of all sorts in said service.



And upon this act, sincerely believed to be an act of justice, warranted by the Constitution, upon military necessity, I invoke the considerate judgment of mankind, and the gracious favor of Almighty God.


In witness whereof, I have hereunto set my hand and caused the seal of the United States to be affixed.



Done at the City of Washington, this first day of January, in the year of our Lord one thousand eight hundred and sixty three, and of the Independence of the United States of America the eighty-seventh.



By the President: ABRAHAM LINCOLN
WILLIAM H. SEWARD, Secretary of State.
Hmmm . . looks like just those that were held as slaves in Southern states were freed. The enslavement of African Americans in what became the United States formally began during the 1630s and 1640s. At that time colonial courts and legislatures made clear that Africans--unlike white indentured servants--served their masters for life and that their slave status would be inherited by their children. Slavery in the United States ended in the mid-1860s. Abraham Lincoln's Emancipation Proclamation of January 1863 was a masterful propaganda tactic, but in truth, it proclaimed free only those slaves outside the control of the Federal government--that is, only those in areas still controlled by the Confederacy. The legal end to slavery in the nation came in December 1865 when the Thirteenth Amendment was ratified, it declared: "Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction."



Abraham Lincoln Quote

“I will say then that I am not, nor ever have been in favor of bringing about in anyway the social and political equality of the white and black races - that I am not nor ever have been in favor of making voters or jurors of negroes, nor of qualifying them to hold office, nor to intermarry with white people; and I will say in addition to this that there is a physical difference between the white and black races which I believe will forever forbid the two races living together on terms of social and political equality. And inasmuch as they cannot so live, while they do remain together there must be the position of superior and inferior, and I as much as any other man am in favor of having the superior position assigned to the white race. I say upon this occasion I do not perceive that because the white man is to have the superior position the negro should be denied everything.”

by:

Abraham Lincoln
(1809-1865) 16th US President
Source:

Fourth Debate with Stephen A. Douglas at Charleston, Illinois, September 18, 1858
(The Collected Works of Abraham Lincoln edited by Roy P. Basler, Volume III, pp. 145-146.)

This is obviously an issue that will be disputed many years after we're gone.

[flattop32355]

You are correct that the Emancipation Proclamation would free only those slaves in areas in rebellion. The Federal government had no mandate to free slaves (note: I do not say end slavery) anywhere else but in those parts (note the exception to areas of LA and VA) of those states in rebellion. It served as a means of denying the rebellious states of an economic resource, as well as emancipation of those enslaved there.

Early in the war, the Federal government had tried to separate the military aspect from disruption of the social/economic aspect by returning runaways to their owners. Later, informal "contraband" rulings came into being. The Proclamation codified and expanded those rulings, again only in areas of rebellion.

Only a constitutional amendment could eliminate slavery throughout the union, which takes time. That it was completed by late 1865 is a wonder at the speed at which it was done, rather than at how slowly it occurred.

[indguard]

Um, Doc...

Are you unaware that a president CANNOT just change the Constitution whenever he wants to, war or no? Perhaps you aren't, but I'm sure if Lincoln suggested that we do so, you'd be attacking him because he was arrogant enough to suggest the change!


This is obviously an issue that will be disputed many years after we're gone.

Yes, by the uninformed it might.

WTH
The Lincolnwasatyrant...not Mess

[hanktrent]

Doc Nelson wrote: "Abraham Lincoln's Emancipation Proclamation of January 1863 was a masterful propaganda tactic, but in truth, it proclaimed free only those slaves outside the control of the Federal government--that is, only those in areas still controlled by the Confederacy."

So what would you suggest that could have been done to free the remaining slaves in the border states, between the time of the emancipation proclamation and the ratification of the 13th amendment?

I know that political pressure was brought to bear on West Virginia, so it basically had to free its slaves to be accepted into the union.

What else? How could someone besides the people of Kentucky, for example, have freed Kentucky's slaves before the 13th amendment, which Kentucky voted against.

Hank Trent
hanktrent@voyager.net

[flattop32355]

Um, Doc...

Are you unaware that a president CANNOT just change the Constitution whenever he wants to, war or no?

Completely aware. Which explains why he did what he did, not what some others wanted him to do and free all the slaves, everywhere, by executive order. There were also those who questioned whether he was exceeding his authority by issuing the Emancipation Proclamation, whether as chief executive or commander in chief.

[Radar]

What else? How could someone besides the people of Kentucky, for example, have freed Kentucky's slaves before the 13th amendment, which Kentucky voted against.

Hank Trent
hanktrent@voyager.net


If I'm not mistaken, Kentucky did not sign off on the 13th Amendment until sometime in the 1960s. I'm sure someone will correct me if I'm wrong.

[Curt-Heinrich Schmidt]

Hallo!

"Are you unaware that a president CANNOT just change the Constitution whenever he wants to, war or no?"

deletion - THP; modern political commentary

In the Civil War era, IMHO, President Lincoln did so when he set aside provisions of the Bill of Rights to deal with the Copperhead movement (largely in Ohio and Indiana).

Others' mileage will vary...

CHS

[hendrickms24]

If I'm not mistaken, Kentucky did not sign off on the 13th Amendment until sometime in the 1960s. I'm sure someone will correct me if I'm wrong.

Kentucky ratified the amendment on Mar 18, 1976

The states that rejected the amendment but have since ratified it.
The 13th amendement was specifically rejected by Texas on Oct 27, 1866; by Georgia on Nov 6, 1866; by North Carolina on Dec 14, 1866; by South Carolina on Dec 20, 1866; by Kentucky on Jan 8, 1867; by Virginia on Jan 9, 1867; by Louisiana on Feb 6, 1867; by Delaware on Feb 8, 1867; and by Maryland on Mar 23, 1867. New Jersey's ratification was rescinded on Mar 24, 1868; Ohio rescinded its ratification on Jan 15, 1868 and ratified again on Mar 13, 2003.

[hiplainsyank]

Ross-

Actually, I agree with you on racism today. I was trying to say that but it didn't come out right, I suppose.

I know that Manning was very intentional about examining soldiers' documents north and south, east and west, from over 1000 individuals, and reported that even western soldiers, who did, as you observed tend to be more neutral to slavery than soldiers from New England, have a change. You seem to have a difference of opinion with the author.
But I must add that Union soldiers didn't all come to that conclusion and didn't all do it at once. Some came to being against slavery early on after their initials enounters with slavery. Some even backtracked a bit after hard war set in and the Emancipation Proclamation (which, Doc, I know did not free all the slaves, but I chose not to answer that because I assume that anyone who knows more than a high school smattering of info about the Civil War knew) was issued, but they had a surge again in 1864 of support for the destruction of slavery as they saw how it propped up the Confederate war effort especially as they got into the deep south and realized that slavery was the key cause of the war. Manning's research seems to indicate that by the end of the war the Union soldiers east and west were by and large against slavery. They may not have approved of dying for slaves or going to Andersonville for slaves, but they understood that if slavery was not abolished in their victory that there would be another war.

And Doc, all the immediate differences between north and south had roots in the slavery system in the south. All of the economic, political and cultural fights were because of slavery. I think it's hard to dispute that without slavery it's highly unlikely there would have been a Civil War.

[indguard]

flattop32355,

I am completely at a loss as to who you are replying to and why. I did not address you, nor did I say anything that would make your post make any sense in relation to what I wrote. Since I did not disagree with your point I fail to see what point you are trying to make that wasn't made already.

[Danny]

Getting back to the subject at hand...

?? No one had gotten off point as yet. The subject is: "What less-than-authentic things can we embrace"

Dan Wykes

[Company Fiddler]

One thing I've noticed as a "fresh fish" specializing in a musical presentation, is the use of modern musical instruments ie: fretted banjos with steel strings, mechanical tuners & resonators, they would have been open back, fretless and have gut strings and fiddle peg tuners. Fiddles with steel strings & fine tuners and modern "western style guitars, they would have been the much smaller parlor guitars. Mandolines were very rare in this country in the 1860's although there were some. They didn't become popular until the Italian immigrations of the 1890's. Having said all that, I do not mind there use if the alternative is no period music in camp!

[flattop32355]

flattop32355,
I am completely at a loss as to who you are replying to and why. I did not address you, nor did I say anything that would make your post make any sense in relation to what I wrote. Since I did not disagree with your point I fail to see what point you are trying to make that wasn't made already.

My mistake. I forgot we have a "Doc" Nelson on the thread, and most folks here know I'm a dentist by modern trade. A case of mistaken identity.

[Micah Trent]

My mistake. I forgot we have a "Doc" Nelson on the thread, and most folks here know I'm a dentist by modern trade. A case of mistaken identity.

How 'bout we just call you "D.D.S"?;)

[yankeecav]

Kentucky ratified the amendment on Mar 18, 1976

The states that rejected the amendment but have since ratified it.
The 13th amendement was specifically rejected by Texas on Oct 27, 1866; by Georgia on Nov 6, 1866; by North Carolina on Dec 14, 1866; by South Carolina on Dec 20, 1866; by Kentucky on Jan 8, 1867; by Virginia on Jan 9, 1867; by Louisiana on Feb 6, 1867; by Delaware on Feb 8, 1867; and by Maryland on Mar 23, 1867. New Jersey's ratification was rescinded on Mar 24, 1868; Ohio rescinded its ratification on Jan 15, 1868 and ratified again on Mar 13, 2003.

From the Government Printing Office. http://origin.www.gpoaccess.gov/constitution/pdf2002/007.pdf

Note "5 The Thirteenth Amendment was proposed by Congress on January 31, 1865, when it
passed the House, Cong. Globe (38th Cong., 2d Sess.) 531, having previously passed the Senate
on April 8, 1964. Id. (38th cong., 1st Sess.), 1940. It appears officially in 13 Stat. 567 under
the date of February 1, 1865. Ratification was completed on December 6, 1865, when the legislature
of the twenty-seventh State (Georgia) approved the amendment, there being then 36
States in the Union. On December 18, 1865, Secretary of State Seward certified that the Thirteenth
Amendment had become a part of the Constitution, 13 Stat. 774.
The several state legislatures ratified the Thirteenth Amendment on the following dates:
Illinois, February 1, 1865; Rhode Island, February 2, 1865; Michigan, February 2, 1865; Maryland,
February 3, 1865; New York, February 3, 1865; West Virginia, February 3, 1865; Missouri,
February 6, 1865; Maine, February 7, 1865; Kansas, February 7, 1865; Massachusetts,
February 7, 1865; Pennsylvania, February 8, 1865; Virginia, February 9, 1865; Ohio, February
10, 1865; Louisiana, February 15 or 16, 1865; Indiana, February 16, 1865; Nevada, February
16, 1865; Minnesota, February 23, 1865; Wisconsin, February 24, 1865; Vermont, March 9,
1865 (date on which it was ‘‘approved’’ by Governor); Tennessee, April 7, 1865; Arkansas, April
14, 1865; Connecticut, May 4, 1865; New Hampshire, June 30, 1865; South Carolina, November
13, 1865; Alabama, December 2, 1865 (date on which it was ‘‘approved’’ by Provisional Governor);
North Carolina, December 4, 1865; Georgia, December 6, 1865; Oregon, December 11,
1865; California, December 15, 1865; Florida, December 28, 1865 (Florida again ratified this
amendment on June 9, 1868, upon its adoption of a new constitution); Iowa, January 17, 1866;
New Jersey, January 23, 1866 (after having rejected the amendment on March 16, 1865);
Texas, February 17, 1870; Delaware, February 12, 1901 (after having rejected the amendment
on February 8, 1865). The amendment was rejected by Kentucky on February 24, 1865, and
by Mississippi on December 2, 1865."

Of course once 3/4 of the states had ratified the amendment it really didn't, and doesn't, matter whether any of the others do, it is the supreme law of the land.

[Curt-Heinrich Schmidt]

Hallo!

"?? No one had gotten off point as yet. The subject is: "What less-than-authentic things can we embrace""

Okay.. two:


1. Out of the box Italian reproduction weapons

and

2. So-called "de-farbed' Italian reproduction weapons

:) :)

CHS

[wilber6150]

To continue Curts list...

3.... Better hygiene and yes a big acceptance to the continued use of
deodorant

4...use of safety officers who can call in medical assistance with modern radios

5...The use of contact lenses to replace glasses

6... tow trucks to pull our vehicles out of the mud after the torrential rain storms have turned the fields into mud bogs:)

[crowley_greene]

Curt and Will,

Thanks for grabbing the reins and pulling us back more in line with the original topic. Although I must admit, the ancillary discussions are truly interesting. :)

[flattop32355]

How 'bout we just call you "D.D.S"?;)

That would be fine, except I'm a D.M.D. :)

Mostly, I just answer to, "Hey, you!"

[Rob]

You're the guy with the 10-gauge needle and the rusty pliers? :D

[indguard]

flattop,

OK, cool. I was just a bit confused as to what was going on. Thanks

WTH
The whutdidesay Mess

[Viceroy]

Noblesville, IN in 1996. The union forces were led by an asian field officer. Many people complained. The way I see it, he is an american and should be allowed to do it as he pleases. Should we have suggested that he reenact as a coolie?

[Pvt Schnapps]

Noblesville, IN in 1996. The union forces were led by an asian field officer. Many people complained. The way I see it, he is an american and should be allowed to do it as he pleases. Should we have suggested that he reenact as a coolie?

No, you should have explained that he was Ely Parker's second cousin. ;)

[Craig L Barry]

Oh wait, we already embrace less-than-authentic muskets...

[FloridaHoosier]

This is a year old thread revived for no apparent scholarly reason, so we'll let it retire