If my math is correct I should have had eight great great grandfathers. I'm only aware of two that fought in the American Civil War. That doesn't mean others didn't. I'm just not aware of it if they did. Of the two that I know, the only one that I know any details at all about is my "Hicks" great great grandfather, Abner Hicks. I don't know a lot, but I do know that he joined the 11th Regiment, Florida Infantry. He was in a hospital in Richmond for a time, and apparently died either there or at Petersburg, Virginia. I don't know how he died, or what happened to his remains. I do know that one of his nephews tried to get a pension for his wife and children. I don't know if he succeeded. I have no idea what kind of a man he was. I know from census records that he was not a slaveholder. I don't know why he decided to fight in the war. He may have needed the money. Based on my family's history, that would be a good guess. Or, he may have believed in the cause however he understood it. Or maybe it was a combination of reasons. I don't know if he was generally a good person, or generally a bad person. He may have loved his family and worked hard to care for them, or he may have abused and mistreated them. I don't know. He may have been a deeply religious man who tried to follow the ten commandments and love his neighbor as himself, and do unto others as he'd have done to him. Or, he may have been a vile, judgmental racist who harbored prejudice and ill will for anyone who wasn't like him.I don't know.
So, I share this snippet of my ancestral history to introduce my thoughts, as a white man, born and raised in the south, on the concept of heritage and the preservation of history as it relates to the Confederacy and the Civil War. You see, I have no reason to cherish a five year period of time in history as my heritage. Not just 1860-1865, but any time in history. The fact is, when I go any further back than my own grandparents and some of their siblings, I have no real sense for what kind of people my ancestors were. And, even if I did, it doesn't define who I am. I hear people say, "we should be proud of our heritage," and I can only respond with "why?" In asking that question I'm not implying that we should be ashamed of our heritage. I'm simply asking, why does it matter? Our ancestral and cultural history is good for only one thing: to be learned from. To revere and promote it as some kind essential part of our very being is to make it an idol, an object of worship. And, because our personal knowledge of our own "heritage" is so limited (if we are honest), it inevitably becomes an idol based on unrealistic nostalgia at best, and more likely pure mythology. It becomes an excuse for those who fear change, and fear the unknown, and fear the prospect that what parents, and grandparents have told us to value may not be of any value at all. It becomes an excuse to harbor opinions and emotions that the better angels of our nature tell us are wrong. For many people the Civil War seems to be a benchmark period in defining the heritage of white people whose ancestors are from southern states. Mathematically, it makes no sense, considering how short a period of time it was compared to the entirety of our ancestry, going back to discovering fire and living in caves. From the standpoint of pride, it also makes no sense to me. Were I to choose a period of time that defined my "heritage," and of which I would be proud, that would not be the period. I don't know what period it would be, but I know it would not be that.
I had the benefit of growing up with a U.S. and Georgia history teacher, who made me take the tests he gave his students as well as those in my own classes. He also expected me to make 100's on them. He also made sure many of our family vacations included visiting historical sites. Whether Native American mounds, or the Smithsonian, it was important to him that I saw and learned about history, because, as I stated earlier, history is for learning. We learn about it, and as we do we learn from it. At least we should. I also had the benefit of having the most amazing Civil War expert I have ever met as my seventh grade history teacher. Mrs. Faye McKay was the best teacher I ever had. She filled a chalkboard with notes and did nothing but lecture and ask questions for forty-five minutes each day, followed by reading an excerpt from John Ransom's "Andersonville Dairy," I learned so much from her, and never once found myself bored. She knew so much, and was skilled at giving meaning to details so that they became more than just facts; they were lessons. As an adult I have continued to have a passion for studying and learning from the past. In the context of the Civil War, I've read multiple biographies of Lincoln and Lee, as well as other diaries, historical documents (including proclamations of secession), and narratives. I don't intend to take this particular post deep into a discussion of the events of that era, but for the sake of my conclusion I will share this. I tire of hearing people say that the Civil War was not "about" slavery. First of all, we define no other wars in terms of what they were "not about." To learn from history we have to avoid such catch phrases and sound bites.
The southern states began to secede because Abraham Lincoln was elected, and they feared that the expansion of slavery, which was already a powder keg issue, was going to end under a Republican government. They were also convinced that the government would not enforce their "right" to have escaped slaves returned to them as guaranteed in the Fugitive Slave Clause of the Constitution , and that it would ultimately move to end slavery altogether. This is not my opinion. Read the declarations of secession. It's what the states that created declarations gave as their reasons. They were specific. The Confederacy was created and therefore fought to preserve the institution of slavery. Post-war revisionism that emphasized burdensome tariffs and state's rights as the central issue that led to the formation of the Confederacy is simply not supported by the facts (documented and preserved history) of the time. Was the Morrill Tariff controversial? Yes. But, only two states, Georgia and South Carolina, found it worrisome enough to discuss in their secession conventions, along with their primary (or "Cornerstone" as Confederate Vice President Stephens called it) issue, which was slavery. Had the southern states postponed their secession, their senators would likely have been able to defeat the tariff in the U.S. Senate. Had that been their main grievance, one would think they would have taken that route. They did not. So, to say that the Confederacy was not built for and on the institution of slavery is to call it's own leaders liars. They said it was, and they documented it for history at the time they separated themselves from the United States of America . It was only after losing the war that some southern leaders began to present a different narrative, by painting a picture of the Confederacy that mirrored the causes of the Revolution: unfair taxes, and self-government. The Union was fighting to preserve the union, and maintain the economic benefits that the south contributed to it. Ending slavery was not its primary purpose. Many union soldiers were abolitionists, but many were not. Lincoln's initial goal was to restore the seceded states to the union, then deal with the slavery issue in less "dramatic" ways. When it became evident that freeing slaves in the seceded states was an important strategic (albeit symbolic) move, both militarily and politically, Lincoln did it. It wasn't until the 13th Amendment was passed in 1865 that all slavery was abolished by law.
So, I say all that to say this. I don't know why Abner Hicks joined the Florida Infantry, but I do know that, regardless of his motivations, he was fighting to preserve the institution of slavery. Do I hate him? No. I did not know him. Am I proud of him? No. I did not know him. Is that a part of my heritage? I don't care. For as much as my opinion matters, local, state and federal governments should not have honored, and should not continue to honor or memorialize, those who chose to leave the United States and fight to preserve slavery as citizens of another country. If private citizens choose to do so on private property, that is between them and their local zoning boards. So, if government institutions rename military installations presently named after Confederate generals, and take down the Confederate flag, along with statues of Confederate soldiers and politicians, I won't lose any sleep over it. It may or may not be my heritage, but it definitely isn't who I am.
So, I share this snippet of my ancestral history to introduce my thoughts, as a white man, born and raised in the south, on the concept of heritage and the preservation of history as it relates to the Confederacy and the Civil War. You see, I have no reason to cherish a five year period of time in history as my heritage. Not just 1860-1865, but any time in history. The fact is, when I go any further back than my own grandparents and some of their siblings, I have no real sense for what kind of people my ancestors were. And, even if I did, it doesn't define who I am. I hear people say, "we should be proud of our heritage," and I can only respond with "why?" In asking that question I'm not implying that we should be ashamed of our heritage. I'm simply asking, why does it matter? Our ancestral and cultural history is good for only one thing: to be learned from. To revere and promote it as some kind essential part of our very being is to make it an idol, an object of worship. And, because our personal knowledge of our own "heritage" is so limited (if we are honest), it inevitably becomes an idol based on unrealistic nostalgia at best, and more likely pure mythology. It becomes an excuse for those who fear change, and fear the unknown, and fear the prospect that what parents, and grandparents have told us to value may not be of any value at all. It becomes an excuse to harbor opinions and emotions that the better angels of our nature tell us are wrong. For many people the Civil War seems to be a benchmark period in defining the heritage of white people whose ancestors are from southern states. Mathematically, it makes no sense, considering how short a period of time it was compared to the entirety of our ancestry, going back to discovering fire and living in caves. From the standpoint of pride, it also makes no sense to me. Were I to choose a period of time that defined my "heritage," and of which I would be proud, that would not be the period. I don't know what period it would be, but I know it would not be that.
I had the benefit of growing up with a U.S. and Georgia history teacher, who made me take the tests he gave his students as well as those in my own classes. He also expected me to make 100's on them. He also made sure many of our family vacations included visiting historical sites. Whether Native American mounds, or the Smithsonian, it was important to him that I saw and learned about history, because, as I stated earlier, history is for learning. We learn about it, and as we do we learn from it. At least we should. I also had the benefit of having the most amazing Civil War expert I have ever met as my seventh grade history teacher. Mrs. Faye McKay was the best teacher I ever had. She filled a chalkboard with notes and did nothing but lecture and ask questions for forty-five minutes each day, followed by reading an excerpt from John Ransom's "Andersonville Dairy," I learned so much from her, and never once found myself bored. She knew so much, and was skilled at giving meaning to details so that they became more than just facts; they were lessons. As an adult I have continued to have a passion for studying and learning from the past. In the context of the Civil War, I've read multiple biographies of Lincoln and Lee, as well as other diaries, historical documents (including proclamations of secession), and narratives. I don't intend to take this particular post deep into a discussion of the events of that era, but for the sake of my conclusion I will share this. I tire of hearing people say that the Civil War was not "about" slavery. First of all, we define no other wars in terms of what they were "not about." To learn from history we have to avoid such catch phrases and sound bites.
The southern states began to secede because Abraham Lincoln was elected, and they feared that the expansion of slavery, which was already a powder keg issue, was going to end under a Republican government. They were also convinced that the government would not enforce their "right" to have escaped slaves returned to them as guaranteed in the Fugitive Slave Clause of the Constitution , and that it would ultimately move to end slavery altogether. This is not my opinion. Read the declarations of secession. It's what the states that created declarations gave as their reasons. They were specific. The Confederacy was created and therefore fought to preserve the institution of slavery. Post-war revisionism that emphasized burdensome tariffs and state's rights as the central issue that led to the formation of the Confederacy is simply not supported by the facts (documented and preserved history) of the time. Was the Morrill Tariff controversial? Yes. But, only two states, Georgia and South Carolina, found it worrisome enough to discuss in their secession conventions, along with their primary (or "Cornerstone" as Confederate Vice President Stephens called it) issue, which was slavery. Had the southern states postponed their secession, their senators would likely have been able to defeat the tariff in the U.S. Senate. Had that been their main grievance, one would think they would have taken that route. They did not. So, to say that the Confederacy was not built for and on the institution of slavery is to call it's own leaders liars. They said it was, and they documented it for history at the time they separated themselves from the United States of America . It was only after losing the war that some southern leaders began to present a different narrative, by painting a picture of the Confederacy that mirrored the causes of the Revolution: unfair taxes, and self-government. The Union was fighting to preserve the union, and maintain the economic benefits that the south contributed to it. Ending slavery was not its primary purpose. Many union soldiers were abolitionists, but many were not. Lincoln's initial goal was to restore the seceded states to the union, then deal with the slavery issue in less "dramatic" ways. When it became evident that freeing slaves in the seceded states was an important strategic (albeit symbolic) move, both militarily and politically, Lincoln did it. It wasn't until the 13th Amendment was passed in 1865 that all slavery was abolished by law.
So, I say all that to say this. I don't know why Abner Hicks joined the Florida Infantry, but I do know that, regardless of his motivations, he was fighting to preserve the institution of slavery. Do I hate him? No. I did not know him. Am I proud of him? No. I did not know him. Is that a part of my heritage? I don't care. For as much as my opinion matters, local, state and federal governments should not have honored, and should not continue to honor or memorialize, those who chose to leave the United States and fight to preserve slavery as citizens of another country. If private citizens choose to do so on private property, that is between them and their local zoning boards. So, if government institutions rename military installations presently named after Confederate generals, and take down the Confederate flag, along with statues of Confederate soldiers and politicians, I won't lose any sleep over it. It may or may not be my heritage, but it definitely isn't who I am.
Comments
Post a Comment