Recently – over the
past 30 years or so – three minority groups have received recognition for the
roles they have played in U.S. history – homosexuals, African Americans, and
Native Americans. All three groups participated in the U.S. Civil War and in both
armies.
Homosexuals
The term “homosexual”
did not exist until about 30 years after the war’s end, which makes it
difficult to specifically identify within the army’s ranks. In Bell I. Wiley’s
landmark, The Life of Johnny Reb and The Life of Billy Yank mentions stag
dances in both armies where some of the men dressed in women’s clothing
participated. There is also an incident at Gettysburg on July 2, 1863 where
Rebels ransacked a house and one of them emerged wearing a dress. I also
encountered two references in the regimental history to two men in the 49th New
York who “seemed to be more than ordinarily affectionate to one another” and
wrote up mutual wills to each other. During the fighting at the Devil’s Den,
the color guard came under tremendous fire. A bullet in the head killed one of the
guard, a fellow know as “The Lady.” His messmate kissed him on the forehead and
kneeled beside his corpse, firing until he was killed. Another, so utterly
distraught at the “Lady’s” death, that he foamed at the mouth. He also died
defending his dead friend.
While the regimental
historians did not elaborate upon the sexual inclinations of their comrades,
they delicately implied their homosexuality. The fact that no one in the
Federal Army was discharged for their sexual orientation implies that the men
in the ranks either tolerated or accepted the homosexuals or that the Army
generally preferred not to deal with the issue. Personally, I do not know. Homosexuality existed in both armies as it
has always existed in armies but it was implied, not openly stated during the
American Civil War. It is a new area of study, which needs to be honestly and
carefully researched.
African
Americans
One cannot
exclude the role of African Americans in the Civil War in both armies. There is
no question that they served with distinction in the Union Army if, like any
troops, they received proper training, and had a good officer corps. Keep in
mind that at Antietam the Federal Army had around 27 “green” white regiments in
the field, many of whom had never fired their weapons. They learned how to use
them the hard way. Black troops were subject to the same type of “training.”
Prejudice existed throughout wartime society, so much so that many thought it
normal. Catholics, Jews, Blacks, Irish, Germans, Italians, Poles, Russians,
Hispanics, Native Americans, and Asians all faced some kind of discrimination,
which does not excuse the bias against people of color in any part of the
country.
The newest controversy
in Civil War history involves Black Confederates. They
existed whether one likes or understands the concept
or not. It merely illustrates the war’s divisiveness. Based upon my personal
research, I have found contemporary accounts from the 33rd New York and the
49th New York identifying African American Confederates in the infantry,
cavalry, and artillery along the Warwick River in the spring of 1862. Surgeon
Lewis Steiner, with the U.S. Sanitary Commission wrote in his diary about some
3,000 Blacks in Confederate uniforms, in all branches of service, and many of
them armed as the army of Northern Virginia passed through Frederick, Maryland.
Hundreds of African Americans petitioned the Daughters of the Confederacy for
military pensions. Most were cooks, wagoners, laborers, and other support
personnel. The argument arises that those men were not free men, that they were
coerced to follow their masters into the war. Detractors often accuse anyone
who supports the presence of Blacks in the Confederate armies as
neo-Confederates.
I
am not a neo-Confederate. I am an historian who has found some evidence, which
indicates that men of color wore gray uniforms and were part of the armies. I
do not know whether they were slave or free. I am not quite sure why African
Americans would voluntarily serve the Confederacy. I do know that they existed
and like their counterparts who traveled with the Federal armies, many of them
performed manual labor, cooked or served as “valets.”
I
often contend that African Americans lost the Civil War, despite their service.
Both sides generally wrote them out of the histories of the war. Both sides
ridiculed them and referred to them in derogatory terms. In 1877, when the
government arbitrarily ended Reconstruction for political reasons, it sold them
out. The best book I have ever read about Reconstruction is The Wars of Reconstruction by Douglas R.
Egerton. It completely destroyed my
“mint julep and magnolias” perceptions of those 12 violent years and it will
remain a permanent part of my library.
To
return to my opening statement in “Don’t Know Nothin’ About History,” I do not
think that the various minorities should appear in sidebars. Far from it. They
must be woven into the complex tapestry of U.S. History. The problem with many
textbooks is that too many teachers rely on them to simplify the past and to
produce neatly packaged, non-controversial curriculums. History by its very
nature is controversial, confusing, and not politically correct.
No comments:
Post a Comment