Said L’Merchie Frazier, the education director at the nearby Museum of African American History in Boston, quoted in "Black soldiers monument faces scrutiny amid racial reckoning/Amid the national reckoning on racism, an unlikely monument is facing scrutiny: a Boston memorial to a famed Civil War unit made up of Black soldiers." The monument in question is the beautiful bas relief by Augustus Saint-Gaudens that depicts the story that many of us know from the movie "Glory."
The work, which sits across from the Massachusetts Statehouse, has been vandalized over the years, mostly by people snapping off Shaw’s broadsword. But during the unrest that followed Floyd’s killing in May, the monument was tagged with anti-police slogans, expletives and other graffiti, along with about a dozen others in and around the Common.
Kevin Peterson, founder of the New Democracy Coalition that’s calling on Boston to rename Faneuil Hall after Crispus Attucks, said the Shaw monument should be moved to a museum because it casts Blacks as “subservient” to whites.
Similar complaints have prompted the removal of other ostensibly well-meaning monuments in recent weeks, including a statue of Theodore Roosevelt in front of the American Museum of Natural History in New York and a statue of Abraham Lincoln depicting a freed slave kneeling at his feet in Boston.
Posts
91 comments:
"It's the first thing you see"
How would Frazier know what the first thing I see is when I contemplate art?
If Frazier wants to see everything through a racist lens, so be it. Don't drag me into that.
So, Shaw wasn't in charge of his troops? He didn't train them? He wasn't responsible for them? He didn't die leading them into battle?
Whose story is being told, not L’Merchie's, she wasn't there. Perhaps neither were her ancestors, which is one additional reason why this history must be erased. There are only victims and oppressors, and we know which description fits L’Merchie.
The word is subordinate, not subservient. Those soldiers were subordinate to their officers, as soldiers are in every army, but they were all on the same side, fighting for the same objective.
It is history. It happened. It was a triumph for blacks. Just because the leader was white makes it less. The commander in chief was white. Does that mean no black who served did so honorably or nobly?
How totally stupid is this insanity we are allowing to be perpetrated on us by idiotic bullies.
I don’t like history. I demand we change it.
They would also whine if the white commander was behind the black soldiers that he was cowering letting the black soldiers take the punishment.
Well I think this is getting out of hand. The black soldiers fought a war and they were subservient to an officer as is practice even today. I think in the quest to take out your President the forces that are directing all these acts, requests and lawfulness during the 3 and a half years not only destroying USA but the whole world. I think the loss of Clinton in 2016 stopped some nefarious plans to subvert the free world and I don't think your President is aware of the real plans of the deep state, they are hurting badly and the material losses are so high that instead of playing the game and waiting for a couple of years to achieve what they would have accomplished with Clinton the loss of 2016 is more damaging to their plans that we will ever know.
Is there any connection between Crispus Attucks and Faneiul Hall other than Boston? Doesn't renaming Faneiul Hall align with the Islamic tendency to claim sites significant to other cultures as their own? (Wailing Wall, Hagia Sophia, etc.)
Tear it down! Tear it all down!
"White commander out front; Black soldiers in the background." Yes, that is the reality. If the soldiers were white, the reality would be "White commander out front; White soldiers in the background." That is how troops were and are led.
We are going through a great spasm of idiocy and self-flagellation that involves simple denial of the reality of the past - and sometimes the present. I wonder how long it will last. If it goes on too long, we will end up driving knowledge about our past underground.
The first thing that jumps out at me is the horse.
He looks like he wants to get the fuck out of Boston
It's a monument to acting white, the key to success.
Army commander leading his men out front...is racist. Obviously.
Well, yes. Robert Gould Shaw was killed leading his men- all black soldiers- in a futile charge against a fortified Confederate position. He was killed and buried in a mass grave with his men. And yes- when you lead men into battle, they are your men. You are their leader.
This is an important note to the Civil War. To our own history. So of course, the Left must remove it. Hide it. Destroy it. Because if you're going to start up a new Marxist nation, all history must be removed and today becomes Year 1.
Unless, of course there is a sane adult in the room to say "NO! No further with this bullshit."
Two comments:
1. An enlightened society recognizes the transcendent value of art as a creation of an artist. There have only been a few thousand sculptors, in the history of civilization, who can create monumental works, and each of them average 15 works in their lifetime.
2. An enlightened society celebrates the progression toward contemporary enlightenment. Progression requires beginning and ending points, and we celebrate the process of moving from one to the other.
We are seeking to destroy evidence of the beginning, and slandering the progression which is regressive societally and politically.
Should the Academy withdraw the Oscars for "Glory"? Asking for Denzel.
I’m sure that many people find the statue problematic, after all it shows a white Army officer leading African American enlisted men in battle. So, I’m sure that the many other statues, painting and murals showing whites and African Americans working together to defeat a common heinous enemy will have to go as per the cancel culture espoused by the latest group of totalitarians.
You can't depict black regiments if they have a white officer? These courageous men are to be consigned to the dustbin of history because their leader was the wrong race?
It is a monument to a military unit, which is a collective entity.
In this case it honors both its organizer and leader, as well as those who volunteered to serve under him in the then-novel honorable condition of soldiers of the Commonwealth.
A tradition in military honors and monuments is to focus on the leader, the general or monarch, to stand in for all. This one is a departure from that.
Both the monument and that which it commemorates is bittersweet, glorious and tragic on many levels. It cannot be properly appreciated, I think, by one who has not been, among his compatriots in bivouac, woken by a trumpet at dawn.
I'm looking for feedback here on this.
I've been thinking about critical race theory and its ultimate goal for awhile, and this is what comes to mind. Black Americans were granted their freedom by the federal government with the declaration of Emancipation crafted by Lincoln in 1862 (in Confederate states) and with the defeat of the Confederacy in 1865, which gave freedom to slaves in areas what did not secede.
Why then are we pulling down statues of Lincoln? Well, Lincoln is problematic. In all versions of history written and taught in this nation, Blacks were granted their freedom by whites. This is not the message that the folks behind critical race theory want to see in another few hundred years. They wish to see a message that Blacks were freed by their own hand, without the agency of some white society granting them freedom as one would grant a day off to a servant.
When the history of these years is read in another five hundred years, they wish to see a history that reflects the agency of Black Americans to throw off the chains of their enslavement with no quarter and no credit given to those who enslaved them.
A metaphor of sorts - We wonder why so much money and effort went into an elaborate Hollywood film positing an alternate history of the Rather/GWB/TANG memo in 2004, when Powerline made their bones on Rather's lies and the obfuscation of CBS and the media. There's a movie that will not die telling the opposite story. Wow, Robert Redford is a really convincing actor.
In two hundred years, which will be believed? Keep your eye on the ball.
Did you actually think they were going to stop with Confederate monuments? You poor fool. Some people are triggered by blacks being subordinate to whites in ANYTHING, including a military context.
And I for one welcome it. Let history be destroyed, to the point black supremacy is the only acceptable position for official history to take. Then watch the pendulum swing back.
The point of Prog complaining is to complain, and to force the target group to submit. The subject matter of the complaint is irrelevant. In fact the less important or relevant the subject matter, the better (although best of all is something cherished by the target group; some symbol they care about).
The exact analog is when the street bully makes you do something trivial but humiliating; and you do it. It shows his power and your capitulation to it. It advertises his power to the whole street, and makes it certain that next time you will submit more readily.
This is not about the Civil War. This is not about historical facts. It is about dominance and submission.
Is there any connection between Crispus Attucks and Faneiul Hall other than Boston?
Naming something after Attucks would ne insulting. Attucks is an example of historical tokenism. We know of him only because he was Black. (Do you know the names of any of the White people killed in the Boston Massacre? I don't, and I'm a US History teacher) We were taught his name because then SJW types could pat themselves on the back and say they were teaching Black history.
This is not about the Civil War. This is not about historical facts. It is about dominance and submission.
If aliens arrived on Earth tomorrow, and gave the leaders of the BLM movement the power and ability to enslave White people, White people would be in chains within hours.
This kerfuffle is about surrendering to Marxism, not about art. Arguing the relative merits of the art, itself, or the story behind it is a waste of breath.
I hope shaw suffered greatly when he died for his beloved brothas.
What is distinctive about the relief is not its focus on the unit's commander, but the prominence of the ranks with whom he served. Irrespective of race, is there another memorial more prominently depicting foot soldiers alongside their commander?
The first thing I see is the large horse, it is carrying a man of small stature compared to those on foot, perhaps symbolizing the improbable leadership with which he was entrusted. An angel above leading the way.
Robert grew to be 5′5 in height and looked a lot like to his two sisters (whom he was close to). He confided in his letters about how upset he was at how short he was and that he was not growing anymore... Once at a “fancy-ball” in February 1855, Shaw shaved his blond beard and dressed as a woman. He “made such fools” of his friends, none of who recognized him until he spoke. Basically all his friends thought he was a girl and hit on him until he revealed himself.
What in the ever loving hell is the New Democracy Coalition? Google isn't much help, but I'd bet my last dime there's Soros money behind it.
Anyone notice how all of our resident lefties avoid threads about this subject like the plague?
Who CARES how things Actually Were? We portray things AS WE WANT THEM TO HAVE BEEN
it's like that sculpture of Rosa Parks; you know, the one Where SHE is DRIVING the bus
- if this commander actually led from the front in the real war battlefield then it is historical and accurate.
- that needs to be established first before any other objections are raised about fake monuments memorials whatever
Once at a “fancy-ball” in February 1855, Shaw shaved his blond beard and dressed as a woman. He “made such fools” of his friends, none of who recognized him until he spoke. Basically all his friends thought he was a girl and hit on him until he revealed himself.
WAIT JUST ONE MINUTE!
you mean that Bobbi Shaw identified as a WOMAN?
why didn't you SAY so!!
No one, and i mean NO ONE, has Any Problem with a white WOMAN leading Black men !!!
especially, not a Trans Woman!
CASE CLOSED
There is nothing wrong after hundred of years of being forced to live otherwise, that Americans should be able to say we're not only sick of this one perspective continually being in our faces, but others - from that time - should be considered, and sometimes, put first and foremost.
This nation has been patently UNFAIR in how it was created. Arguing it shouldn't change is ludicrous.
In all versions of history written and taught in this nation, Blacks were granted their freedom by whites. This is not the message that the folks behind critical race theory want to see in another few hundred years. They wish to see a message that Blacks were freed by their own hand, without the agency of some white society granting them freedom as one would grant a day off to a servant.
What the Lit Crit types should be celebrating is Haiti. It did throw off the whites by black revolt. Napoleon tried to take it back and finally gave up, which is why he sold Louisiana. The history of Haiti is probably about what would have been the history of the Confederacy after the blacks had overthrown their masters.
More Blogger fuckups.
When I was a boy growing up in Boston, my brother and I would follow the Freedom Trail quite often. St. Gaudens’ monument was my favorite stop on the trail. It is a truly magnificent work. He had presented a copy in Paris and received high praise from Rodin. The faces of the black soldiers were modeled on actual veterans. Each face captures the true humanity of these men. They are solemn, dignified and determined. True Freedom Fighters.
On the back of the monument are listed the names of the officers and men who died in that battle. The motto on the back is “The Memory of the Just is Blessed”. The vandals who defaced the dedication spray painted their silly slogans over the names of men far better than they. Those brave men who “have consecrated it, far above our poor power to add or detract” deserved respect. What a disgrace.
Robert Gould Shaw was the scion of a distinguished Boston family, only 26 years old when we died. As inexperienced as his men, he probably made a foolish decision to storm that fortified position and it cost him and his men their lives. No doubt this was courageous.
Here are some photos.
Obama told us that the proper way was to lead from behind.
So Shaw clearly did it all wrong.
...and a statue of Abraham Lincoln depicting a freed slave kneeling at his feet in Boston
At the moment this version of the Ball Statue is beautiful- intact, free of graffiti, and my campaign to fill the urns on the base with foliage was successful.
For the moment...
Exactly. They should just take it down or put another statue up, showing the black soldiers only.
The history of the 54th isn't the fairy tale that New Englanders love to tell themselves. It was an attempt to fill their 1863 draft quota by filling up the regiment with blacks and former slaves and then slapping "Massachusetts" on it, and getting credit for it -so native Massachusetts men didn't have to serve. New England LOVED the civil war and ending slavery, but stopped wanting to fight for that, so they did resorted to dodges like the 54th.
Later the Lincoln Administration stopped this sort of shenanigans, and put the Colored Troops into separate US Regiments. That's why colored regiments with state names disappeared after 1863.
Kevin Peterson, founder of the New Democracy Coalition that’s calling on Boston to rename Faneuil Hall after Crispus Attucks, said the Shaw monument should be moved to a museum because it casts Blacks as “subservient” to whites.
Kevin has way too much time on his hands.
He needs a job where he actually performs a service because absent of any objective criteria, he just lets his imagination run wild. I guess that is what we get with modern education, I mean indoctrination. His professors must have loved him.
"The vandals who defaced the dedication spray painted their silly slogans over the names of men far better than they."
So it was just a prank? why get upset over some silly nonsense.
Seems my link to Flickr was stripped. Are links not allowed?
Photos of the Memorial
Did a white guy actually lead the unit (and die doing so)?
Oh well, that might be the truth but it makes people FEEL bad. Can't have that.
The truth is no defense against the feelings of people we ("we") care about.
Heck of a job you nice centrist people have done--wonderful culture you've built us.
A white man giving his life fighting to end slavery in the United States is still a white man--that whiteness (and maleness, and straightness) trumps all.
In those times officers (Even generals and certainly company commanders) did lead from the front.
The persons you quoted are either very ignorant OR very great liars!
Some people who have accomplished nothing in their own lives need to tear down the works and accomplishments of others to feel better about themselves.
Before dying in battle, Shaw demanded that his troops be paid the same wage as white Union soldiers.
If he'd just lived a nice quiet life instead of fighting to end the oppression of Bblacks there'd be no monument. And that would make this fucking douchebag Frazier happy, I guess.
Those pictures are beautiful Lovernios. Thanks.
(Third attempt to leave this comment without the error message. So if I'm spamming, I apologize Althouse and you can delete the extras.)
Considering that the Confederacy announced that white officers captured after leading colored troops into battle would be sublect to summary execution, I’d say that Robert Gould Shaw exhibited more courage than any modern Democrat I’ve met or ever will meet.
"So it was just a prank? why get upset over some silly nonsense."
Whether or not it was a prank, the point of the memorial is that these men had names. And faces. And loved ones. And they gave their lives in a just cause. Remember their sacrifice. Respect their memory.
What the Lit Crit types should be celebrating is Haiti. It did throw off the whites by black revolt. Napoleon tried to take it back and finally gave up, which is why he sold Louisiana. The history of Haiti is probably about what would have been the history of the Confederacy after the blacks had overthrown their masters.
That point you make there is inconvenient as hell, Doc. Down the memory hole with it.
I know the betas of the world would dearly love to change it, but traditionally enlisted men are subservient to their officers.
There is nothing wrong after hundred of years of being forced to live otherwise, that Americans should be able to say we're not only sick of this one perspective continually being in our faces, but others - from that time - should be considered, and sometimes, put first and foremost.
Just wait until one is put up with a black trans woman leading the charge.
Once you start messing with history, all perspectives are valid.
It’s about forcing you to submit.
The monument does not show blacks as subservient. It shows them organized to kill slave owners.
I say we shouldn’t burn the Metropolitan Museum and all its artifacts to the ground.
What do you say Crack?
“ This nation has been patently UNFAIR in how it was created. Arguing it shouldn't change is ludicrous.”
Tear it down...those soldiers were doing the white man's bidding.
People don't celebrate Haitian Independence between its not a pretty story. The slaves revolted in 1791, killed over 4,000 whites, and raped, pillaged, and looted. Later the French sent troops to restore order, and abolished slavery for the whole colony in August 1793. The French Republic abolished slavery in all its colonies in 1794. That was followed by endless conflict. Finally:
On 1 January 1804, Dessalines, the new leader under the dictatorial 1805 constitution, declared Haiti a free republic which was followed by the massacre of the remaining whites. His secretary Boisrond-Tonnerre stated, "For our declaration of independence, we should have the skin of a white man for parchment, his skull for an inkwell, his blood for ink, and a bayonet for a pen!"
As inexperienced as his men, he probably made a foolish decision to storm that fortified position and it cost him and his men their lives. No doubt this was courageous.
He knew what was going to happen and volunteered anyway. War was more brutal back then. Everyone knew what the attack was going to do to the lead regiments. Someone was going to have to take the punishment, and Gould stepped forward, at least in part to allow his soldiers to prove they were as brave as White soldiers.
I'd file this under "some people can't be satisfied no matter what" and forget it, but I have to add that rejection of reality is a real problem for some people. "Commander out front" was a historical fact in the Civil War, to encourage the troops following them, and that made the commanders a prime target for the enemy. If reality cannot be accepted by someone viewing a historical monument, to hell with them. I don't have to listen to idiots.
The slope is slippery.
People won't like the bottom of the hill.
Some people still believe you can negotiate.
Or make reasonable concessions.
Those people are fools.
According to Wikipedia, the official name of the monument is "Memorial to Robert Gould Shaw and the Massachusetts Fifty-Fourth Regiment". There's a reference to a book written by the treasurer of the memorial fund, which includes this quote from Massachussetts Governor Andrews:
'"The monument," said Governor Andrew in his call for subscriptions, "is intended not only to mark the public gratitude to the fallen hero who at a critical moment assumed a perilous responsibility but also to commemorate that great event wherein he was a leader by which the title of colored men as citizen soldiers was fixed beyond recall."'
So the governor at least clearly intended to honor Shaw first, the soldiers of the 54th Massachusetts second. I think the sculpture clearly shows that.
Interestingly it was the survivors of the 54th along with former slaves from Beaufort, SC that led fundraising for the project. The monument was originally meant to be erected in Beaufort, but it was blocked by anti-black bigotry.
So this monument has been offending people of different colors since even before it was built. What a great monument!
"This nation has been patently UNFAIR in how it was created. Arguing it shouldn't change is ludicrous."
I'm not sure many people are making that argument. What I'm hearing is the method of making that change matters. Destruction and defeacment of statues and memorials is wrong, at the hands of BLM/Antifa or Neo-nazis. Make he case that the 54th Memorial is wrong and persuade enough people to remove it. I, personally, don't think that case can be persuasively made.
As history as shown us, the creation of any nation will be painful and unfair to some. This was true for the US for blacks, many whites, and of course, the indigenous peoples. The question is, how has that nation changed? I don't think you can deny that this nation has changed. For the better. And we can continue make it better, hopefully together.
What was the joke about the Irish? Good soldiers when led by White officers?
You know, if you people were to embrace Cracks views on race, the Democrats would be toast.
"You have to go deeper . . . if you’re curious."
Actually, you have to submit to The Narrative, and curiosity carries a heavy cost.
Gahrie,
I agree. And his men proved it.
The Shaws actually were originally from New York. They built their stunning mansion on Beacon Hill not far from the memorial. Since they were late-comers to Boston, they had to build at the bottom of the hill. All the Yankees had already claimed the summit. Most of the houses on Beacon Hill were made of red brick. The Shaw mansion was gleaming granite and stood out from the rest.
Howard said...
You know, if you people were to embrace Cracks views on race, the Democrats would be toast.
THANK YOU
Weird times indeed!
Monuments of Black soldiers fighting for liberty and union are fit for defacement and destruction, while many descendants of Confederates are desperate to conjure up thousands of Ol' Black Comrades for their ancestors' regiments.
One of my history profs (WWII PH paraplegic, in a wheelchair from 1945) was a huge fan of the St. Gaudens . . . I wish I'd paid more attention to his comments on that and commemorative sculpture in general.
Since about 1990 I've been involved in markers and monuments planning, funding, text writing or editing, installation, unveiling, and maintenance (we have a very active local/regional history society) and have argued (unsuccessfully) before official boards for the retention of statues and markers that don't suit present sensibilities.
The Forrest statue in Memphis, for instance, was a superb equestrian figure by an American
artist that some rank very high, if not quite St. Gaudens's level-- Charles Henry Niehaus.
Narr
The Past Has Its Privileges
Point being, the critique cited by the Prof is exactly what should be applied to all historic remnants--who put this here? Why? What does the work tell us about the artist, the social, political, and cultural structures and attitudes of her day, the technological level of her society?
None of which is the same as dismissal and destruction, but reflects the proper use of memorials and monuments-- Denkmalen -- as opportunities for learning.
But it's more fun, not to mention self-satisfying, to just remove everything you don't like and can't understand in the name of historical hygiene and cultural cleansing.
Narr
Forward!
Considering that the Confederacy announced that white officers captured after leading colored troops into battle would be sublect to summary execution, I’d say that Robert Gould Shaw exhibited more courage than any modern Democrat I’ve met or ever will meet.
This was all talk. The Confederates never did any such thing. They also discussed executing Blacks caught in Union army uniform, this too was never done. Although, surrenders of blacks were often "not accepted" on the field of battle. Obviously, the South knew the North would retaliate, so there were no official executions of anybody.
Davis and his Confederate Government loved to bluster. At one point, they declared they were going to shoot Union sympathizers in East Tennessee as "traitors" but never put it into effect for the obvious reason.
All nations are established unfairly. Unfair, or against the interests of some group.
What is glory for some is trauma for others.
Spain has endless unfairness in its past. Dispossessions, massacres, persecutions. Look into any other nations history and you will find all you want.
Howard, I doubt you will ever be tempted, but please never praise me for anything.
"Whose story is being told...?"
How about the true story? Is that of any value? The true story belongs to all the people who participated, and it is best when it tells the truth about the roles played by all. There is no shame in being a soldier commanded by others. To say there is, denigrates those men much more than them having a commander of a different skin color.
The only reason to lie about history is if you are ashamed of it. Black history does not need lies, although that seems to be changing in modern times.
“Commander out front” was a historical fact in the Civil War, to encourage the troops following them, and that made the commanders a prime target for the enemy.
It still happens, at least among lower-level officers. Read, for instance, war correspondent Michael Yon's dispatches from the Iraq War — e.g.: “The Battle for Mosul” and its sequels.
Michael K: Excellent suggestion that we study Haiti. It was a key piece on the chessboard during the French Revolution and afterward, with its lucrative sugar industry but thereafter, as you say, was a (ahem) black hole for French metropolitan ambition. If Napoleon’s expeditions had not been so decimated by yellow fever and malaria, he might not have had to sell us Louisiana and our history would be enormously different. So I guess we should thank Toussaint Louverture and his fellow revolutionaries for being so difficult.
But my understanding of Haiti after the very early 1800’s is very thin. I now want to learn why it has persisted in such a miserable condition for the past two centuries.
So let me see: we have to take down this statue for reasons. Why, exactly, is the 16 foot tall statue of Stalin in Seattle still up? If we are going around taking down statues of Washington, Columbus, Lincoln, and U.S. Grant, plus this statue of brave black soldiers because they are offensive... why is Stalin still up?
Also: I agree with Crack. Turrible how blacks were sold into slavery and brought here against their will. We should immediately fix it by shipping them all back to Africa, where no doubt they would be in paradise outside of this horribly racist America. Monrovia sounds like a nice place.
And any black person who refuses to go has cashed in their "right to whine" about the past.
They are either recharacterizing or cleansing history, our... their history. That said, diversity dogma forms the foundation of progressive philosophies.
There were significant numbers of black troops who surrendered after the Battle of the Crater, outside of Petersburg, who were summarily murdered AFTER they had surrendered and had been taken into custody.
There was no tribunal or anything like that. Confederate troops took it on themselves to shoot or bayonet them as they were being led to the rear to become prisoners or slaves.
I'm not aware of any Confederate being courtmartialed for these acts, though.
See this account of the Battle of the Crater - and the massacre of black troops afterwards, as well as the attitudes common among Confederates at the time, who wrote many of the contemporraneous accounts. https://www.essentialcivilwarcurriculum.com/the-battle-of-the-crater.html
spain was occupied by the moors for 700 plus years, about halfway through, they did rebel starting with rodrigo diaz de vivar, el cid,
Shaw was an abolitionist who volunteered in the Union army at the beginning of the Civil War. He gradually rose in the ranks (at first he was led by General Gordon, a white man who probably rode a horse). Massachusetts state government was interested in giving freed blacks an opportunity to fight, and Shaw volunteered to lead them, though of course his soldiers had no military experience. (Some had no experience with firearms.) He chose company commanders from the rank and file.
According to one description of the sculpture, St.Gaundens used photographs of the actual black volunteers modelling their faces.
These were brave soldiers with a brave leader.
To Howard and the Crack Emcee
“You people?”
I am deeply offended. I will now burn down a liberal arts college of my choice as expression of my moral outrage, that can never be questioned, debated or argued with.
Of course Confederates did kill white officers and black soldiers after surrender. Not universally and at every opportunity, but enough to make it noteworthy in a war that was actually fairly gentlemanly most of the time--at least among the higher echelons and larger formations. The farther down and away from set-piece battles, the dirtier it all was.
By the 1860s there was a consensus among the civilized races (that's what they liked to call themselves) that noncombatants and prisoners had some inherent rights to be respected if they were White. The Confederate policy was that USCT officers were not real soldiers and could be dealt with at point of capture, but Blacks were valuable property and either returned to their owners or put to work by the CS government.
The other side of that coin is to look at what Europeans were doing in Africa and Asia, and you find similar little fights to Ft Pillow or the Crater--immense slaughter by one side with relatively little loss-- Taku Forts in 1860 and Magdala in 1868 are relevant.
At any rate, danger and death were no respecters of rank on a civil war battlefield, and
being a junior officer in the line was (and still is) about the most dangerous job there is--and many many field grade officers like RG Shaw were killed leading by example.
Narr
Right up my alley
Howard said...
You know, if you people were to embrace Cracks views on race, the Democrats would be toast.
7/28/20, 10:44 AM
That would be more nearly possible if one could only understand them.
But my understanding of Haiti after the very early 1800’s is very thin. I now want to learn why it has persisted in such a miserable condition for the past two centuries.
Ask Crack. Seriously, Haiti shares the Island of Hispaniola with The Dominican Republic. The latter has had its troubles but nobody has a vacation home on Haiti. Why?
Francisco D said...
"Kevin Peterson, founder of the New Democracy Coalition that’s calling on Boston to rename Faneuil Hall after Crispus Attucks, said the Shaw monument should be moved to a museum because it casts Blacks as “subservient” to whites.
Kevin has way too much time on his hands."
Indeed. This guy has been agitating for ages to get the city to remove Peter Faneuil's name from the building on the grounds that he was a slaver. He was a wealthy trader and along with his uncle, Andrew, had a very successful shipping concern with business between the sugar plantations of the West Indies, importing Rum, sugar, molasses, as well as buying/selling slaves from their warehouses on the waterfront.
I don't know whether he will be successful, and even if he were, the name is so synonymous with Boston that I doubt people would call it by any other name. Additionally, it's on the National Registry of Historic Places is part of the Boston National Historic Park as part of the Freedom Trail. This brings the National Park Service into the equation. The Hall is also where new citizens take the oath on July 4 every year. Doesn't that count for something?
The monuments mentioned above were documenting momentous changes in American culture. The idea that one can criticize Lincoln for not loving blacks enough, and that saving the Union and freeing the slaves is no big deal, shows a distorted view of history. We have made progress over the past few hundred years but we need to remember that progress was difficult and slow. Honoring a leader and his men who fought bravely is the proper thing to do. Mocking them is childish.
"In all versions of history written and taught in this nation, Blacks were granted their freedom by whites."
180,000 black soldiers fought in the Civil War and this was a definite contribution to the Union victory and to the general freeing of the slaves. Most of these soldiers enlisted after 1863 when the North and South had each lost about 200,000 dead and millions wounded or sick. Then the Union gained 180,000 new, highly-motivated recruits who did not run away as the draftees and the bounty soldiers did in 1863. And the South had no such group to call on. Of course it had a large group of slaves but there was no question of arming them to fight for their freedom. These new black regiments are one of the reason the North could keep fighting while the Southern armies steadily diminished in numbers. Probably most members of the black community who come from the South have one or more of these soldiers as ancestors and this is a history to be proud of. But in general members of the black community are not aware of these ancestors or what their own great-grandfathers did. This is because, in general, the muster rolls for these regiments are not online and no regimental histories were been written for these 180,000 men (There are online regimental histories with muster rolls in the back pages for all the other regiments. Finding your Civil War ancestor in these lost regiments or finding diaries or some way of reconstructing a vivid history of these regiments might be a worthwhile exercise for Black Studies or Black History month projects. Many of the officers were well-known abolitionists and so there might be diaries.
wildswan's numbers are way off. Not the 180k or so eventual USCT, but the assertion that
'after 1863 [by?] when the N and S had each lost about 200,000 dead and millions of wounded or sick.'
Leave aside sick--almost all ACWABAWS soldiers were sick a some point or other--but the latest work on losses suggests 750,000 killed, wounded, and died total by mid 1865. And that's an upward revision from what was thought 50 years ago.
For wildswan's numbers to be correct, final totals would have to be in seven figures. There were only some 3+ million individuals in uniform (counting both sides) through the conflict. The site I mention later says "6 million served" but that includes multiple enlistments and some very short-term and home-guard types too.
A loss like that would have caused demographic . . . distortions that eugenicists could only dream about.
Go see www.NPS.gov/civilwar/Soldiers-and-sailors-database and you're off to the races.
There's a ceremony here every April at the National Cemetery to honor the soldiers and others killed at Ft Pillow. I have usually attended, but wasn't able this year.
Narr
Trust me, I'm an expert
Narr
wildswan's numbers are way off. Not the 180k or so eventual USCT, but the assertion that
'after 1863 [by?] when the N and S had each lost about 200,000 dead and millions of wounded or sick>"
I did check and I see that the total casualty numbers I carelessly referred to as millions is 1.5 million and this includes soldiers wounded or sick who then returned to service. So "millions" is sloppy or, more accurately, wrong. But I've read a lot of regimental histories. Most regiments started at 800 or 900 and by the end of the war were down to 150 to 200. Part of this was killed or wounded and discharged and part was sick and died or discharged. They weren't able to get replacements because the draftees and bounty men deserted. I'm sure you know this but I want to explain the facts I'm arguing from. So the point I was making was that as the war went on the regiments were getting smaller and smaller. This was happening on both sides. But after 1863 the North was able to recruit new regiments from the former slaves. These were full regiments and in time they were trained regiments. There were 180,000 men recruited into these regiments by the end of the war and there were plenty more men ready to sign up in those regiments. So the former slaves fought for their freedom as part of the Union Army.
But this story is untold because most of the regiments composed of former slaves never had regimental histories written and those regiments do not have online muster rolls. I am aware of the online database you mention but my experience with it is that it seems to refer to muster rolls for black regiments but when you drill down it refers to microfilm at the Library of Congress or state historical societies. How then can the descendants of these men be proud of what their ancestors did when it's so difficult to trace the story because it isn't online? If I am incorrect, please let me know. What I was looking for was the regimental histories of the first black regiments in the different states. (Not Massachusetts or South Carolina)
A Walmart ad on one of its trucks touted its efforts to address hunger on the gulf coast. It showed a black child (boy) in the foreground, and a white child (girl) in the background. I wonder what political angst tortured that decision. Putting the black child in the front feeds the "poor black" stereotype. Putting the black child in the background would, well, put blacks in the back. As long as color is an issue, such false dilemmata will be with us.
Post a Comment