Blog 4 History

Apparently several Chicago Mayoral Candidates support the idea of “reparations for descendants of slavery.”

Am I the only one who wonders how on God’s Green (er, sun blasted over heated Co2 saturated…) Earth this is accomplished? Does anyone agree with this idea? I have some concerns.

1. Is this Really Fair? What’s the true goal here?
2. Why? Social Justice. Those people who believe in “cosmic justice” that simply does not exist.
3. How? (Lot’s of hows: how do we determine who was or was not a descendent? How do we pay?, eh, print money I guess…)
4. Who pays for this? My ancestors never owned slaves, I don’t want a dime of my tax money going to such a thing?
5. How about Indians, we need to pay them too? Who else? Time to step up for your Social Justice pay…

Perhaps Spain should pay reparations to descendants of the Aztecs?

Please, someone explain the logic here for me!?!

This past weekend in St. Louis a special Civil War Reenactment took place on the steps of the Old State House, only it was not your typical gun smoking affair. This time a group of historians and local residents reenacted what they called a “last slave sale.”

From the article:

The site of the “auction,” the Old Court House, has a long history related to the slave trade. It was the site of public auctions of all kinds of property at sheriff’s sales, usually in the course of settling estates or enforcing court orders for damages stemming from lawsuits. The Old Court House was also the site of the first hearing of the infamous Dred Scott case.

The auction, as expected” drew some criticism. If you’re interested here it is:

I think the intentions were good and the presentation effective.

As noted in my last post, my A.P. United States history class is in the final phase of our Reconstruction Unit. Yesterday we opened class discussion with a reading they were assigned the night before from Elizabeth R. Bethel’s excellent book, Promiseland: A Century of Life in a Negro Community. Afterwards students organized into groups to do the following: 1) List the major issues facing Reconstruction; 2) Devise a 5-Step plan. They have already read about Lincoln’s Plan, the Radical Republicans plans, Wade-Davis Bill, ect., and along with the supplemental readings like Bethel’s, I felt like they had a good mix of information to create their own plans. They did a good job with the activity and the discussions were informative and at times elaborate. Here are some highlights as I remember them:

• Goal of Reconstruction: Students struggled with seeing Reconstruction as a success. It succeeded at reunited the nation, but utterly failed with regard to Blacks. So we discussed what was the goal of Reconstruction, the students said it was 1. Unity; 2. Recovery; 3. Equality. Problematic indeed. We talked about race and racism and that there was probably never a real chance at equality, and as the next 100 years will show. So we felt as a class, that Unity and Recovery were most likely the main intentions of Reconstruction. (Yes, some simplification here, but I tried to stay out of the discussion as much as possible and only intervened when I felt they were going up the wrong tree, I guess.) Some students overreached and designed plans that were, though thoughtful, not practical for 1860s and 1870s America.
• The End of Reconstruction: [I stole this from Kevin Levin].  I write on the board: “1876: Mission Accomplished.” This gets the intellectual juices flowing and some heady discussion usually follows. You can imagine the topics: Black Codes, Sharecropping, ect. The discussion here was about how the end brings out, perhaps, what the Civil War was about? The end of the fighting and how reconstruction was accomplished can maybe lend some light there?

A final discussion was about the legality of seizing Southern Plantations and giving the land to other people (former slaves). It was mainly one student who decided that as Slavery, though morally wrong, was not illegal when practiced by the South, so therefore did the United States have the right to sieze land? Clearly once the South rebelled they did, however, there was some interesting reasoning, though of course ultimately I don’t think the debate lasted.

All in all some great discussion.

The end of our Civil War and Reconstruction unit is nearing and as we enter our discussion concerning Reconstruction we looked briefly at Sherman’s Field Order Number 15. To me this represents so much about Reconstruction. William T. Sherman clearly issued the order as a practicality to take care of the issue of all those new Southern laborers in need of subsistence, but also it furthered his desire to punish the Southern plantation elite. Some students did wonder if Sherman was capable of seeing this order as doing good for those former slaves [first and foremost] who desperately wanted their own land, and I felt that was a legitimate question that I could not answer. Sherman’s order is convoluted in terms of potential interpretation, is it not? It held so much hope for those poor Freedmen and in the end so much heartbreak. So in a way, the hope and failure of Sherman’s order represented, in a microcosm, the failure of Reconstruction.

Any thoughts here that I could pass on to my students. This is a very frustrating end to the unit as its hard for them to get past the failure of Reconstruction and focus on understanding what happened and why. Isn’t that the goal, understanding and not judgment? Or is it?

I am making my way through Eric Foner’s excellent book.

–
Eric Foner, Reconstruction: America’s Unfinished Revolution, 1863-1877 (New York: Harper and Row, 1988).

Found this fascinating data on one of my favorite blogs Vast Public Indifference and I am simply going to post this and you can visit the post and make comments if you wish; I’m not sure what to think.

Slavery, Resistance, Freedom (Gettysburg Civil War Institute Books) edited by Gabor Boritt and Scott Hancock contains six excellent essays that cover slavery and American history, with an emphasis on memory, and how the idea of freedom as represented here impacts our understanding of American democracy. From the publisher:

This extraordinary collection of essays by some of America’s top historians focuses on how African Americans resisted slavery and how they responded when finally free. Ira Berlin sets the stage by stressing the relationship between how we understand slavery and how we discuss race today. The remaining essays offer a richly textured examination of all aspects of slavery in America. John Hope Franklin and Loren Schweninger recount actual cases of runaway slaves, their motivations for escape and the strains this widespread phenomenon put on white slave-owners. Scott Hancock explores how free black Northerners created a proud African American identity out of the oral history of slavery in the south. Edward L. Ayers, William G. Thomas III, and Anne Sarah Rubin draw upon their remarkable Valley of the Shadow website to describe the wartime experiences of African Americans living on both borders of the Mason-Dixon line. Noah Andre Trudeau turns our attention to the war itself, examining the military experience of the only all-black division in the Army of the Potomac. And Eric Foner gives us a new look at how black leaders performed during the Reconstruction, revealing that they were far more successful than is commonly acknowledged–indeed, they represented, for a time, the fulfillment of the American ideal that all people could aspire to political office.

I will be utilizing this excellent book in my A.P. United States history class this coming year. In particular, the essay “The Quest for Freedom: Runaway Slaves and the Plantation South,” by John Hope Franklin and Loren Schweninger. This essay dealt with some interesting topics that could be nicely presented in a lecture or discussion. How the relationships between slave and master, and the measures to which slaves would go to resist slavery, but also the interesting and unspoken rules that some masters had. Neither slave nor master is a caricature in this excellent piece. Slave owners are not always cruel, and sometimes had moral standards. There was a dynamic and layered relationship among slave and master. To be sure, slavery was a brutal and arduous affair and when slaves resisted and escaped, they were usually dealt with severely. So within this essay there are a lot interesting facts, and some great talking points.

-C

Has there been a specific study that has dealt with how Union soldiers’ opinions concerning things like slavery, emancipation, ect., change as they transitioned from their homeland and descended South and witnessed, firsthand, the nature of slavery?

Additionally, how did their experiences going South, entering Rebeldom, change their point of view on Negro soldiers, and everything else that was involved in race issues, if at all? For example, here are some quotes from various soldiers from Indiana:

“Mother said she was afraid I would turn to an Abolitionist. If I had been one at home, I have seen enough to make me a Negro hater since I came here.” (Frankfort, Ky., Oct. 15, 1861)

“I suppose you hear plenty of talk about the free negroes I don’t know how the folks like it nor don’t kear [sic] if it will only bring the war to an end any sooner….We are in war and anything to beat the south.” (Jan. 8, 1863, Ft. Barnard, Va.)

“They [sic] is two or three Negro Regts here. They make good Soldiers and save the white soldiers a good deal of hard work. They make a fine appearance on drill. I am in for the Black Soldier. I say bring them on.” (Joseph Hollis, Folly Island, S.C., Sept. 9, 1863)

“Though I live in the negro country, I haven’t changed my opinion of them, only strengthened it. They are not good for anything, unless driven to work, so you don’t need to be afraid that I will fall in love with them, though it is the case with many soldiers.” (Winchester, Tenn., Nov. 6, 1863)

“I seen a new part of the ‘Elephant’ today viz. a squad of Negro soldiers drilling. They did a great deal better than many white troops I have seen with the same opportunities.” (Tullahoma, Tenn., May 31, 1864, p. 142)

“Nearly all the guards along the road are Negroes. They are fine looking soldiers. They always turn out at a present arms when the train passes. Their accouterments and guns are as bright as they can be, and the broad smile that marks their countenances attest their like of the change from Chattels to U.S. soldiers.” (Louisville, Ky., Sept. 17, 1864)

“Up to the time we landed I had not noticed any negro troops, but after we left Akins landing I saw nothing else…They flocked out to see us as we passed, and I never saw a blacker set of Negroes in my life. They beat the ‘Ace of Spades.’” (March 10, 1865)

With these quotes being from different soldiers it’s not possible to measure how they were impacted as they moved South and saw things such as slavery, Southern Women, Southern society, ect., and how that real life, face-to-face exposure impacted them.

If I took 100 or so soldiers and followed their evolution in thinking as they went South, that might make from interesting findings, would it not?

Oh, and if someone has done this please point me in that direction….

Center design of the 6th U.S. Colored Troops regimental flag. The top motto reads, “Freedom for all”. From the Library of Congress Collection.

Over at Kevin’s blog, as he has many times, there is some interesting discussion going on concerning the Confederate Flag and how it is displayed in public.  The issue centers around memory, how it is being celebrated, the flag’s meaning, and why it is displayed. I am overtly simplifying here the discussion there.

Anyway, just for kicks I did some google searching for “Confederate Flag” and came across some interesting images of the Southern symbol. Some I selected as they were funny, others not so funny.

What is the flag’s meaning and how important is that when considering its display?  If it is used as in a message of hate, obviously that is rude. If it used as a symbol of the Lost Cause myth, than that is ignorant. However it is used should that even be a determining factor? Anyway, consider each of these below and if you want chime in on what you think the meaning for each is, please do.

Last month members of the University of Alabama’s Kappa Alpha Order participated in a tradition that has produced some controversy. The students dressed in Confederate military uniforms and accompanied by dates dressed in traditional dresses, and attended an Old South event in Shreveport, La. The fraternity traces its roots to the Civil War and Confederate Gen. Robert E. Lee.

According to one person, “…they were being insensitive. I don’t think they understood the broader implications of what they were doing.” According to the article, students and other community members were offended by the sight of “fraternity members in rebel uniforms and white women from another sorority in hoop skirts.”

In respone, Larry Wiese, executive director of the Kappa Alpha Order issued a statement: “Old South celebration, including the parade, has been a Kappa Alpha tradition at Alabama for many years but we are sensitive to the concerns of students, faculty and the community.”

First, lets just set aside the whole Freedom of Expression rights.Therefore, it seems to me there are two ways to view this: 1) the motives of these individuals is pure racism and therefore should be stopped; 2) the motives of these students is to honor history and tradition, and whether we like it or not, the Old South did indeed exist and to disallow such events is to ignore an important aspect of history; albeit a regretable part. Therefore they are simply “reenactors.”

The photo above shows the “reenactors” on their way to the dinner or dance, whatever. I don’t know what side I agree with most.

I can see this issue both ways. A strong argument would be that: would we allow Germans to dress up like Nazi’s and celebrate National Socialism? Obviously not. So does that apply here? You could make a case obviously.

But I think there are other issues as well. I think this would be agreat debate subject in the classroom.