Delicate Topics in First Person

[Elaine Kessinger]

Re: Delicate Topics in First Person

In reading period sources one also should consider when, in the course of things, it was written. People's opinions are shaped by their experiences; so in the example of the soldier who writes a memoir later, his/her experiences since the action being described have effected his/her take on the event. A person might not hold the same opinions, or hold them as strongly, or as outspoken-ly, in 1859 as in 1865.

[Collodian Artist Wife]

Re: Delicate Topics in First Person

I've been reading a diary of a federal soldier from Indiana which he wrote in 1862 describing his day to day activities and what/who he encountered and despite his being educated discussed no ideology other than defending the federal government. April 1st Cap James Lytle writes about meeting an old friend: " I was permitted to meet him here on the sacred soil of the Old Dominion side by side to defend our Constitution & enforce the laws truly said & this meeting is one of the fortunes of war".

And "Portsmouth VA May 22,1862 - it is now 10 days since we captured this place & matters have assumed a very satisfactory condition. Our troops behave themselves admirably & no depradations have been committed. there being no whiskey allowed for sale we have no trouble with drunken soldiers the people are beginning to see they have been most shamefully deceived In walking down the street yesterday I saw many little star spangled banners which give evidence of the returning loyalty. The women cling to their new delusion with more tenacity than the men. Some of the young ladies treat our boys with the most unmerited contempt. the middle class are very ignorant & know nothing of the institution. elsewhere in Virginy they can't read & all they know is from hearsay & it is not surprising that they should be induced to take up arms against the Old Govt. The low class is the most miserable of all the creation, are far below the slave in all respects - but now that we have brought good money, plenty of provisions & goods they are naturally forced to believe that they have been grossly deceived & all swear vengance against the southern confederacy".

I am studying for my impression as a civilian and appreciate the opportunity to read both period and modern sources. thanks much to Emmanuel for the extensive reading list. My Amazon wish list expands again.:wink_smil

Vivian Harrington

[lukegilly13]

Re: Delicate Topics in First Person

First off....FANTASTIC thread! I think the attitude of a soldier toward the current times (1860's) is a major part of authenticity that some folks do not emphasis enough.
To clarify and deepen my last comment....

I think this is a good step by step process to handling this critical info:

1. Be careful of your character when forming this impression. If you are a small poor dirt farmer from a very small town many miles from a city then you probably won't have read the same sources as folks who were raised in atlanta, private schooled, and are graduates of West Point. You also may not have been exposed to slavery in the same fashion as some others in other parts of the country.

2. Be aware of the biased feelings that Jake speaks of above. There are/were biased sources. However, keep in mind that (if you are reading a source created pre-1861) the source was biased then as well....so be careful to read material that was available to your character and try to form your opinion from your personal response of the same biased opinion your character read.

3. Don't forget that nothing past 1860whatever has happened yet. Try not to form your character's opinion from books from Dr. Robertson, Shelby Foote, Bruce Canton, etc. Your character could not of read those....use them for your personal knowledge but leave them out of your character's knowledge. It is VERY hard not to stitch in our modern views because racism is such a touchy subject. It was then too...however, the civil rights movement was John Brown's raid...not the riots in LA. (I mean that as an example certainly not the only case in point).

4. You may have to have a go between. In a EFUBU, you can stay in character and eveyrone understands the nature. If you are at a park doing a living history, you may want to have a mediator (maybe a park ranger, civilian, etc) that is there to explain that you (as a character) only have the knowledge of your period and you can only give your (character's) opinion as of 1860whatever. This person can smooth things over with an explantion if your 1863 opinion post Gettysburg offends a 2008 liberal.

5. Don't forget the common sources sometimes overlooked by Civil War folks such as The Bible, Common Sense by Thomas Paine, The Declaration of Independence, the Constitution, Writ of Secession, etc.

To sum it up....read modern sources to educate yourself of the period. Research your character to determine their background....read sources available to your character then....interject your personal opinion (as this is what seperates us from the farbs..the fact that we have heart and soul in our impression), go back to the period sources and form your character's opinion as close as possible.
Hope this helps!

PS: I have an article on this that I have created as a class/guideline to teach to park interpreters...how do I submit that to someone to review and possibly post in the archives or articles section of this forum?

[hiplainsyank]

Re: Delicate Topics in First Person

I think one thing to remember for thinking about southern attitudes and opinions is the slave patrols, which, if I understand correctly, were essentially like militia in that all able-bodied men were required to take their turn keeping watch for runaway slaves. Also, one of the things that united white southerners was the fear of slave revolt, hence the very emotional reactions to John Brown's Raid, and the unification of much of the south against any sort of anti-slavery talk, politics, etc.

There were some very deep seated fears of slave violence among southerners in the lead up to the war.

[EVOC]

Re: Delicate Topics in First Person

I think one thing to remember for thinking about southern attitudes and opinions is the slave patrols, which, if I understand correctly, were essentially like militia in that all able-bodied men were required to take their turn keeping watch for runaway slaves. Also, one of the things that united white southerners was the fear of slave revolt, hence the very emotional reactions to John Brown's Raid, and the unification of much of the south against any sort of anti-slavery talk, politics, etc.

There were some very deep seated fears of slave violence among southerners in the lead up to the war.

It was much more than fear of violence. White people across the country were repulsed by the idea of assimilating black people into free society. Thus, the anti-immigration laws for black people in IL., Ohio and and a few other Northern states. There were 3 million black people living in the South in 1860.

I do not believe any Federal soldiers were fighting to allow freed slaves to live in Springfield, IL or Gettysburg, PA. No wonder there was no massive slave revolt in the wake of the non binding Emancipation Proclamation. The South was their home.

Not content with mere legislation, Illinois, Indiana, and Oregon had anti-immigration provisions built into their constitutions. In Illinois (1848), in clause-by-clause voting, this clause was approved by voters by more than 2 to 1. Most of the opposition to it came from the northern counties of the state, where blacks were few. In Indiana (1851), it was approved by a larger margin than the constitution itself. In Oregon (1857), the vote for it was 8 to 1. The Illinois act stayed on the books until 1865. The Black Codes dealt with more than just settlement. Oregon forbid blacks to hold real estate, make contracts, or bring lawsuits. Illinois, Ohio, Indiana, Iowa, and California prohibited them from testifying in cases where a white man was a party.

http://www.slavenorth.com/exclusion.htm

[jake.koch]

Re: Delicate Topics in First Person

John Brown's Raid was like the September 11th of the 19th Century, It's hard for people to realize just how shocking that event was for both North and South. The South had had slave revolts before, Nat Turner, Vessey, and others. This was much different because John Brown was putting into practice what the Garrison's of the North were preaching. Also that he was a white man trying to incite the slaves as well horrified the south. He was openly condemned by many in the north, for every church bell that rang at the time of his execution there were just as many that thought he was a nut case.
I've talked period racial politics with people that are shocked to see somebody from the north refer to John Brown as "crazy". Then they think you are making it up when you say that Lincoln was a colonizationist and at first wanted African Americans to be entirely shipped out of the country. I think somebody mentioned earlier the many facets of the Republican party of that period. People tend to overlook the fact that the free soil Constitution in Kansas didn't just bar slavery, it barred the entrance of any free blacks as well.
The more that you relate period events to modern day events, the easier it becomes for people to understand. The handicap with this conversation at least is that when talking in first person, we have no understanding of these events. Unfortunately I doubt if there is one simple way to handle the situation.

[Indianabugles]

Re: Delicate Topics in First Person

"Unfortunately I doubt if there is one simple way to handle the situation"
Perhaps that is just it Jake!!!

How far would Billy or Johhnys social and political awareness stretch beyond the obvious what affected them?
In each public interaction in the third we have a limited interaction time with the public and in the first it is even more sparse, especialy with a subject as big and subjective as this.
So perhaps the angle in the first is just to pick out the salient points of the issue relating to the persona portrayed. Explain to the public the issue, not in terms of the wider sociopolitical and global effect but in the limited sphere of its immediate effect on the individual and limit it to one or two things.

I went back and read the original question again and although what has been stated after, and it's all wickedly good stuff, is very true, educational and relevant. It does make me think more on Luke's point. 2008 education, how big a picture would they have looked at. Maybe we overthink it, and did we answer the original question?

It also reminded me of something we did with some friends of mine some years ago when an innocent member of the public asked a question and started a first person, in character discussion between an angry War Democrat, a staunch Republican, a Republican with high moral and abolitionist sympathies and three other soldiers with self sympathies.
This strayed onto slavery and I seem to recall the Abbo Republican getting a hard time and the member of the public commenting that he never realised the subject was so divided and complicated. Nobody came out of first person, even when the question was posed and it drew a small crowd.
Perhaps the answer is to do it in groups in the first.

I also aree with Jake's comment on relating modern events and things to make them understandable but if you are in the first person that is not an option. I, as the middle interface guy, interpreter, narrator etc have that luxury.

I have done a talk on John Brown as well, bad debts, Kansas and Harpers all included, and he falls into that sensitive ground as far as our people in the UK are concerned so I had to tell the story and leave the public to decide on what they think of him. JB Martyr or Monster is a possible thread unto itself.

Perhaps also it is good to base some opinon on the period Bull!!
How well trusted, or informed was the media of the day, spin happened even then. I would be interested on opion on this.

But I will quit rambling now as think I have addressed the original question which I perhaps did not do so clearly in my previous post.

[DocReynolds]

Re: Delicate Topics in First Person

Well, as for first person, IF the spectators have been oriented properly either through an introduction, or a bridge person). You can express your viewpoint without fear. We had a "camp-fire" discussion where the public was present, and they were apprised that it was September 1863, and as such they should expect viewpoitns and language of the period. The discussion about the War included a few abolitionists as well as those against making this a war to free the (....) fill it in as you wish! There were a variety of opinions expressed and at the end, a man came up to me, who was African-American. He fully understood what we had done, and felt that it not only got his grand kids interested, but was also necessary to remind people about our history.

Having said that, I can say that I have read letters from Northern troops (Indiana) who threatened to desert if it became a War of Abolition....In my Confederate impression, (3rd N.C.) the company musician was black. (He was formally listed on the roster,a nd mustered for pay, so he was not a servant taken along, but an enlisted soldier). The 3rd also ahd at elast one substitute who was African-American, so I have made that a part of my discussion, when I'm in gray.
The key is preparing your audience.

Pete Bedrossian
150thNY/3rd NC

[KPavia]

Re: Delicate Topics in First Person

Pards,
Example: The average Billy Yank was not an abolitionist, and was most certainly not fighting to free the slaves. In fact, he was probably pretty racist; and if he were an Irish immigrant on top of it all, he probably would prefer the slaves stay in chains.

This is something that I believe is commonly misperceived amongst the general public who I think tend to lean towards the "Union is fighting to free the slaves" myth; and as such, to give a better portrayal and shatter false myths, perhaps is something I should add to my first person persona.

Unionists fighting to free the slaves is not necessarily a false myth. WEB Du Bois, who grew up in Great Barrington, Massachusetts states of the townsfolk, "I was born in a community which concieved itself as having helped put down a wicked rebellion for the purpose of freeing four million slaves." That goes to show that many veterans in the town probably enlisted to free the slaves, amongst other reasons. As you read the book, you come to see that his town was actually very desegregated and very non-racist. At one point, some contraband blacks from the south come and establish a black methodist church. That segregation is so surprising to the other black people that they prefer the white church, so you can see that putting off the "myth" of a union soldier as a fighter to free the slaves as a myth is not totally correct either. Your outlook on slavery would depend on where you come from. If I was portraying a yankee from Massachusetts, I'd probably be more like what Du Bois described.

[J. Donaldson]

Re: Delicate Topics in First Person

This won't help you answer your question, but I suggest that you read What This Cruel War Was Over by Chandra Manning. Questions the reenactor belief that Yankees in uniform were "not abolitionists, and was most certainly not fighting to free the slaves," with war time writings from the soldiers themselves showing how they were pretty radical.

Bill

Works such as that should be taken with a grain of salt, because sources can be manipulated, or at least cherry picked, to prove whatever point the author is trying to make. Painting with broad strokes does not replace careful research based upon the geographic area you are representing and the attitudes present in that area. Part of my thesis research dealt with an individual who moved from North Carolina to Iowa with his brother who fought in the 3rd Iowa Battery. His papers contained a contract for work as an overseer of slaves prior to moving, and while he never talked with approval of abolition, his letters contained many negative representations of African-Americans.

Speaking of Iowa, you can add that state to the list of northern states that had prohibitions on the settlement of African-Americans within its borders prior to rewriting the state constituion in the 1850s. Prior to that time, African-Americans were required to deposit a cash bond of between $500 and $1000 at the state capitol before establishing residence. I can't imagine many whites who could afford that amount, let alone free African-Americans.

[Horace]

Re: Delicate Topics in First Person

Period perceptions of slavery/emancipation are so complex, and so much has been illuminated so well here, that I can't say much that wouldn't snowball unneccessarily into what's already been touched on.
These are three disconnected thoughts that have occurred to me about the Federal point of view that might provide context in a first person situation:
I just finished 'The Vacant Chair' by Reid Mitchell. He goes, through letters to and from home, into the idea that many soldiers of Democratic background eventually switched their allegiance to the Republican party because the Democrats were arguing about the point and purpose of the war, while the Republicans were the only ones prosecuting it. The soldiers' daily perspective was about survival. Abolition, one way or the other, cerainly meant nothing to them if they were dead. The point's kind of obvious, but it would be [I]very[/I obvious to someone within sound of the guns. Their world was a brutally simple one.
Alot of people now tend to congregate around their party and have party-line responses to certain issues. Some people don't feel compelled by, or loyal to, either party. The same was true then...though my impression is that party loyalty was a bigger deal then.
Slavery was legal in the U.S. Capitol for a year into the war. Five slave states in the Union, four before West Virginia 'reseceded'. People just don't know this. We always heard them referred to as 'border states' in high school history class. Why most of them were still Union states is a whole argument in istself...

[lukegilly13]

Re: Delicate Topics in First Person

Kenny,
You are right! DuBois certainly was raised in a community that was desegregated...however, he wasn't born until February of 1868. He was one of about 50 African Americans in a northern town of 5,000. However, you must consider that he is seeing the slavery issue from hindsight of the Civil War. He certainly deserves some credit for his contribution to the civil rights movement, his help with the United Nations, and his accomplishments of obtaining a PhD from Harvard and studying abroad (in Germany). But you must also recognize that he became a Marxist and was deported and for years was denied a visa to return to the US (1952-58). So i'm not sure that he is a good representation of the feelings of a northern town in 1861. DuBois' comment was written after spending some time in Tennessee where he volunteered as a teacher and gained first hand experience with severe racism and the aftermath of slavery. His passion for the civil rights movement and experience of great contrast to the south beyond the shadow of a doubt skewed his opinion of the veterans in the non-segregated town he grew up in. A lot of his writings are targeted at inspiring what he called "the talented 10th" (top 10th) of intelligent african americans.
I would think that the small number of african americans in his community and the lack of racism would lead those folks to be displaced from the slavery conflict somewhat. Now I do agree however, that DuBois hometown would be a good example and source of some non-racist (especially by an 1860's viewpoint) Lincolnites (yanks).

[Hank Trent]

Re: Delicate Topics in First Person

Unionists fighting to free the slaves is not necessarily a false myth.

Another place to look for local sympathies, where northerners were actually putting their lives on the line to help free slaves, was in slave "rescues" before the war, when townspeople would try to set free a runaway slave who'd been captured by slave hunters. Mobs would generally turn out for the excitement, giving a sign of which way the most vocal support went in the community. The last few paragraphs here discuss some cases, and there was also the well-known Oberlin-Wellington rescue.

Unlike other underground railroad activities which are difficult to document because they were secret at the time and subject to exaggeration post-war, the rescues tended to be noisy public affairs, well reported in the courts and the newspapers at the time and spawning local commentary.

Hank Trent
hanktrent@voyager.net

[hiplainsyank]

Re: Delicate Topics in First Person

People tend to overlook the fact that the free soil Constitution in Kansas didn't just bar slavery, it barred the entrance of any free blacks as well.

Very true. However, the Leavenworth Constitution barred the entry of free African Americans, but the final Kansas Constitution, called the Wyandotte Constitution, which was the last one adopted in 1859, allowed the entry of free African Americans.

Additionally, Kansas was the first state to raise a regiment of black troops, the 1st Kansas Colored Infantry, which was mustered into state service in August 1862, and a detachment of 225 men fought a force of 500 Confederates in Missouri in October, 1862.

[jake.koch]

Re: Delicate Topics in First Person

You are correct, I should have been more specific with the date and stated that it was changed later, that only goes to show how complicated the issue was to evolve in that way. I found that interesting about Kansas being the first state to raise black troops. We discussed it during my seminar class and I thought it was very interesting because I'd only heard of the 54th Mass, and the different Louisiana and South Carolina Units amongst the argument for earliest black regiments.

I think the outcome of this argument whether we like it or not is that there will never be a definate answer and we shouldall be doing some more research. There seem to be as many differing opinions today about the time period as there actually were at the time which could actually be helpful.