Delicate Topics in First Person

[JeffLawrence]

Pards,

Something I've been weighing the possibilities & practicalities of as of late has been some of the details of my first person impression; particularly how to address delicate, sensitive or questionable topics. The ones that concern me the most are those personal beliefs that may not be in any way tasteful to modern sensibilities (or mine as a modern Joe, for that matter), but would be very much commonplace sentiments in the period.

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.

The catch: The last thing I would want to do is to drive off people who might otherwise be interested in learning more about the period by offending them with statements that shatter their myth too harshly, and possibly leave them thinking that the sentiments are mine, and rooted in a racist mind, rather than an effort to give them a more accurate reflection of the time.

What are you folks' thoughts on this? For those of you who do first person, do you ever broach topics like this? If so, what is your approach?

[ephraim_zook]

Good question, Jeff.

My approach is generally this:

In my part of Pennsylvania farm country I've only seen three or four negroes in my life at all, and they seemed like ok sort of fellas, so I have no personal feelings toward them at all. The Quakers in town have some strong feelings about abolition, but they are kind of strange anyhow. On the other hand, there's something just not right about one man owning another, and if they are freed because of the war, well that's just fine with me. If not, that's ok too. I joined the army because some of my neighbors and kinsmen did, and my grandfather fought for our separation from the king and I don't want to see that generation's work come to naught by dissolving the republic.


This may be copping out on the issue, but it presents a not-uncommon sentiment without getting anyone riled up one way or the other. That's my "spectator face". At a history-heavy event where my contact with visitors may be non-existant I may take a radical approach one way or the other, depending on the scenario, whether I'm union or confederate, etc.

Your mileage may vary.

Ron myzie

[AZReenactor]

I don't shy away from historic persona and attitudes, even controversial ones, although I do try to avoid depicting any kind of "stereotypical" dehumanized generic persona of what the average soldier thought. The men who served in the war were individuals with a myriad of opinions and attitudes on all kinds of issues.To try and dilute that individuality down into some formulaic impression is to do them an injustice in my opionion. I much prefer to base opinions and attitudes on individual letters, diary's and then extrapolate that using period news newspapers, books, and other items that helped form those attitudes.

That said, I do first person as a way of enriching the experience of my pards and myself. It is a way for us to step into the past a little more fully by distancing ourselves from modern and anachronistic conversation during immersion events. When modern 'tators are around it has little gain for us since the entire experience is filled with anachronisms already. It has been my experience to try and carry on a conversation in first person with someone not in character frequently becomes hokey within minutes. If they want to play along they usually end up attempting to trip up the reenactor, or educate them on the marvels of modern society rather than learning about history.

For all our events where we are doing first person, immersion or otherwise, we select one individual ahead of time who is designated to serve as a bridge to the modern world allowing the rest of us to remain in first person. This person can step out of first person into the role of historic interpreter to explain who we are, what we are doing, and answer any questions from the public directly. Even on back country patrols and marches we have such a person designated so that they can address the occasional hiker, or forest Ranger etc. without disrupting the flow of the event; for everyone else they just carry on as though the modern were not even there.

On some occasions I have also found it useful to perform first person orations based on a specific individuals letters or journals, but these are staged and scripted performances rather than off the cuff first person role playing. And the audience understands such stage presentations for what they are.

It is a system that has proved quite manageable and allows us to individually and collectively more fully explore attitudes and opinions of the men we depict without confusing or alianating an often underinformed public.

[bAcK88]

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.


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

[Mcouioui]

Good question, Jeff.

My approach is generally this:

In my part of Pennsylvania farm country I've only seen three or four negroes in my life at all, and they seemed like ok sort of fellas, so I have no personal feelings toward them at all. The Quakers in town have some strong feelings about abolition, but they are kind of strange anyhow. On the other hand, there's something just not right about one man owning another, and if they are freed because of the war, well that's just fine with me. If not, that's ok too. I joined the army because some of my neighbors and kinsmen did, and my grandfather fought for our separation from the king and I don't want to see that generation's work come to naught by dissolving the republic.


This may be copping out on the issue, but it presents a not-uncommon sentiment without getting anyone riled up one way or the other. That's my "spectator face". At a history-heavy event where my contact with visitors may be non-existant I may take a radical approach one way or the other, depending on the scenario, whether I'm union or confederate, etc.

Your mileage may vary.

Ron myzie

I do not know this I am well to express my thought with my bad written English, but I try.

I think that the study of the history and the truth imposes the honesty of the language, by speaking about things which hurt, the problem not were the one who says things, but the one who hears them.

For me we must be able to say these things and break the false images without that made of us racists.

We have the same problem in France (the old people in first time) with German of WWII, all people in France do not want to hear that German were not all Nazis in WWII, even if the shoah is of the responsibility collective of German people of this period, but attention, those current german people today not have to pay for that.

As I do not have to pay for 200 years of colonial massacres of France, even if I am not proud of my country for that, I do not feel responsible.

The slavery, it is the same matter for you today, for the current generations, even if that is a part of your history, you are not responsible, you today of that.

There is a very beautiful Yiddish proverb which says that in any life experiment, even negative, there is one good education to keep.

Now there is a great part of psychology in the transmission from our passion to the others, it is not simple, I recognize him, I have no supernatural solution for that, just my experience of life and my pilgrim's stick of the lover’s of the history.

For your first person (my opinion) it is necessary to put in it your heart by forgetting not that it is only a role and not you, if you pass on this message there, by being convincing as an actor playing Hamlet, without that your "public" forgets that you is only an actor, it is won …

[ElizabethClark]

I would highly recommend reading "Past Into Present" by Stacy Roth. She addresses many of the challenges of difficult impressions, and how to handle them in a smooth manner for maximum educational benefit.

[Becky Morgan]

Indeed, WHEN the soldier is expressing an opinion might matter a great deal. Those of you who have read a good many letters home have no doubt seen the shift in attitude between leaving home, with whatever degree of contact there was with people of color, versus what they said after they had seen more enslaved people, more free people of color, black soldiers in our out of combat, etc.

One of my GGG-uncles killed himself after he came home, leaving behind a pamphlet blaming the entire war and all its consequences on African-Americans. Before he left, most of his family had been involved with the Underground Railroad in the Hocking Valley. In his defense, he had become obviously mentally ill not long after his return and was getting worse very rapidly. I wonder whether he actually had PTSD or was suffering from blue mass poisoning.

On the other hand, many men who had the sort of indifferent approach described above appear to have become much more abolitionist after they saw people who had been enslaved. Letter after letter reflects, at best, unease with the evidence of how slaves must have been treated.

The issue of When To Say What is especially sensitive in areas like national or state parks, where people might really get hysterics. Political correctness has a frightening effect on history, since some venues don't even want historians to mention unpleasant subjects. We went to a living history presentation at a library once to see Annie Oakley. She arrived with holsters, sans pistols, and spent the entire hour talking about how she hired out as a maid early on and couldn't believe how beautiful the draperies were in the employer's house. What did the kids learn? Annie Oakley was a maid when she was a little girl and she got famous for some reason. The presenting organization didn't want any mention of guns! If that were the case, why did they pick Annie Oakley from the list of historical people who could be portrayed? I actually had one teacher ask me to talk about the Civil War, but not to mention slavery. I declined.

[lukegilly13]

Speaking from the Confederate side...I was asked to speak on Slavery in first person in front of about 150 college students and the board of higher education in the area I was in. Just to add...I usually get chosen to field this question since I now have a rep for it. I usually start with what I think I would of felt if I were really alive then.....now of course, they expect a confederate to support slavery and are usually blown away when I'm against it. I have a copy of Uncle Tom's Cabin. I show them...throw it down...say it's a bunch of bull-you know what....and explain that everyone doesn't treat their slaves that way and the ones that do be damned! I think that people are suprised to see that when it comes to the individual soldier...their ideas of slavery were:
1. Sometimes very mistaken and based on hear-say reads in the newspaper and dime novels.
2. Not all that much different north to south
You could maybe go with the Lincoln opinion....anti-slavery, but pro deportation.

[Indianabugles]

I am that Middle guy, the one between the impression and the Public.
I actually do a talk on Slavery and abolition and it is very easy to talk about post Lloyd Garrison abolition, or the first true Abolition. I always start with Benjamin Lundy and the Gradualists (read lukes Deportation). Perhaps not true abolition, but a start. Did Garrison not start his cause with them? Todays thinking seems to class all Abolitionist into the Garrisonite Immediate family as this sits better with modern perception, so I dispel that straight away?
On ths one I agree 100% straight away with Luke.
Having come into this hobby a Union man with a misguided opinion over slavery, the more I read, well the more I became aware that the average Billy Yank was probably more concerned with other factors and the average Johnny Reb didn't own slaves. It was just a side effect of states rights.
Did Billy become a practical abbo after seeing slavery in effect, did he become one to get the war over quicker perhaps, or did he not give a damn. Or was he fundamentally racist. I have come across several writings that seem to be anti slavery while still considering the Negro a second class human so back them Racism and Abolitionism were not mutually exclusive. I find it easier to make the audience think rather than tell as this is very broad and subjective field, even back in the 1860s.
Did Lincoln get shot of slavery to satisfy a growing Abbo trend a home, to keep Britain and France out of the Game, perhaps to satisy his own moral concience, maybe to cause disruption within the Confederacy, even to keep Republican faith with the one man one vote or most likely a collection in unequal measure of all.
If the public come with the view that this was the Morally high fighting the wrongness of Slavery all I do is make them think.
Present all angles.
Personaly I like to picture it as an argument between the Morally ambiguous and the morally misguided. No black and whites..... Literaly!!

But if I had to do in the Union first person I would probably dscuss it from a geting the war over quicker view with a detatchment from any high moral cause.

[Emmanuel Dabney]

Sounds like folks would benefit from reading some new and older works:

Eric Foner. Free Soil, Free Men, Free Labor: The Ideology of the Republican Party Before the Civil War. New York: Oxford University Press, 1970, 1996.

Foner illustrates how Republican ideology provided the consensus that motivated Northerners to mobilize their society into war.

James McPherson. What They Fought For, 1861-1865. Baton Rouge: Louisiana State University Press, 1994.

McPherson believes that soldiers were motivated by causes and peer pressure was not the main reason to fight the Civil War. For Union troops he argues that while most Union troops did not fight for racial equality, most understood slavery as a cause of the war, without its elimination the South may rise again, and that enslaved people provided strength to the Confederacy. Others thought that the destruction of the institution would be punishment to the South for starting the war. For those who fought for the South, McPherson argues that even in their masked language of “liberty” and “freedom” most Southerners were interested in preserving racial inequality and the slave institution which best preserved this inequality.

Peter S. Carmichael. The Last Generation: Young Virginians in Peace, War, and Reunion. Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press, 2005.

This work surveys 121 Virginians born between 1831 and 1843 who were mostly born into slaveholding families and collectively were convinced that Virginia had lost its prominence in the country because of their parents’ and grandparents’ generations. These men advocated Christian discipline, economic modernization, and increased educational opportunities and eventually displayed their devotion to secession and the Confederacy much earlier than the “old fogeys.” Carmichael reads and in some cases re-reads primary sources to investigate a generational worldview to expose the concept of progress in Virginia’s slave society.

Chandra Manning. What This Cruel War Was Over: Soldiers, Slavery, and the Civil War. New York: Knopf, 2007.

Manning’s book provides deep insight to the support of whites to the Confederate cause whether slaveholders or not. She argues that Southerners wished to maintain cultural formulations of racial and sexual identity. She maintains that Southerners did not abandon their cause because they feared submission to the Union and what they perceived as the Union’s racial crusade.

Jason Phillips. Diehard Rebels: The Confederate Culture of Invincibility. Athens: University of Georgia Press, 2007.

The author consults letters and diary entries written by soldiers from 1863 to 1865 to explain how religious dogma and perception of Union barbarity and ineptitude sustained Confederate soldiers. These men who were diehards were both consumers and producers of rumors, misinformation, and propaganda that allowed them to visualize the longevity of a Confederate republic.

Aaron Sheehan-Dean. Why Confederates Fought: Family and Nation in Civil War Virginia.
Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press, 2007.

Sheehan-Dean argues that Virginia soldiers continued to be motivated by the profound emotional connection between military service and the protection of home and family, even as the war dragged on.

Aaron Sheehan-Dean, ed. The View from the Ground: Experiences of Civil War Soldiers.
Lexington: University Press of Kentucky, 2007

This anthology contains essays on the Union soldiers' changing opinions of slavery, Confederate soldiers' changing opinions of their foes; the inherent friction between military and civilian values; religion; and the memory of a battle.

[Pat.Lewis]

Thanks Emmanuel, glad you posted that. I think the concern here is not one of interpretative skill or tact, but one of historiography. We first need to be grounded in the post-civil rights historical literature on race, slavery, and Civil War before we can move on to then talk about it to the public. This world is too complex -- and, yes, too different -- from our own to understand through one good book.

On one level I am fine with reenactors sticking to battles, tactics, and the minutia of soldiers' lives because that is an area where they can pick up most of the information they need from a limited number of sources. However, the decision to engage the raging debate (then and now) on slavery and race needs to be followed up on by an honest commitment to historiography. That means a lot of reading, a lot of facing up to the fact that history isn't nice, isn't pretty, and isn't simple. This is, in short, a commitment I believe most reenactors unwilling to take on to a satisfactory degree. This is not a knock on them by any means, they are simply interested more in the military aspects of the war rather than the political and social.

That having been said: when living history seamlessly combines accurate physical representation of the era with hard-hitting commentary on antebellum and wartime society it is a transcendent thing. It don't just happen easy, though.

[Mudslinger]

First, I must agree with Ron...this is one of the best posted threads in a long time.

Second, when responding to the sensitive questions on the causes and such, let us remember that IMHO, we are here first to preserve the history before us and educate those who ask these "sensitive questions".

True, through all the research and writings, it is especially hard to understand the individual reasons of why the men enlisted, for both sides. There are the common reasons in the hobby today such as preserving the Union, States' Rights, Emancipation, etc...

For example, I too, had those who fought for both sides, mainly Virginia and Ohio. Three of my ancestors who fought for the Commonwealth of Virginia were very well-to-do and lived in the Shenandoah Valley. Not one owned a slave. Now why did they fight for the Southern cause? I could formulate an idea on the subject that will baffle me to the day I die.

I do know that one of my ancestors who fought for the State of Ohio lived in Georgia long before the war as a farmer. When the war broke out, he wrote that he returned to Ohio and enlisted due to patriotism and love of his native state, though he also loved the south, and had no qualms with the southern cause.

I think the big question is:

1. Why did South Carolina, Mississippi, Florida, Alabama, Georgia, Louisiana, and Texas secede before the bombardemnt of Ft. Sumter?

2. Why did Virginia, Arkansas, Tennessee, and North Carolina secede after the bomabardment of Ft. Sumter and Lincoln's call for volunteers?

3. Why did Delaware, Kentucky, Maryland, and Missouri stay in the Union during the war?

Yes there were individual reasons the men fought (i.e. peer pressure, better income, making history, preserve the Union, abolition, etc..), and many have studied this topic over the past century and have come to the same conclusion; that they must formulate thier own opinion based on fact from written journals and other publications, including political. These publications, as we all know, were not very accurate and biased time and time again.

Born and raised in South Carolina, and the southern culture, I understand why the South seceded. Now living in (West)ern Virginia, 2 miles from the Ohio River, and portraying a Yankee soldier (having a few that served there too), I understand why they fought for the North. Irreconcilable cultural differences.

The point is, even if it is sensitive, remember we are here to educate. Give your honest opinion based on fact. I as Emmanuel has already recommended, would also recommend to read
Chandra Manning's book:

What This Cruel War Was Over: Soldiers, Slavery, and the Civil War.


Again, a very good question Jeff. Let's keep this one going. I would love to hear more responses.

Capt. Nick Miller
33rd O.V.I., Co. F (http://geocities.com/ovi33rdregiment/home)
"The Acorn Boys"
Western Federal Blues" (http://westernfederalblues.org)

[lukegilly13]

Good post Cap'n Miller.
Question for all......Would one's historical portrayal be strengthened more by reading books from the period? Rephrasing....would your 1860's opinion be more accurate without considering the benefit of your 2008 education? Yes the books will be very biased being written by folks that were angry one way or the other...but it's the twisted opinion that they read as well. My suggestion would be to read "Uncle Tom's Cabin". It will probably anger you one way or the other. Of course I would not suggest that people avoid modern sources....Lord knows there have been some VERY good ones out since 1865....however, as you would when buying clothing or gear......form your "period" impression opinion from original period documents whenever possible.

[jake.koch]

One thing that you have to be really careful with when it comes to period documents is the bias of the time period. I'm not disagreeing with Luke, I think that those period sources are essential, you just have to "look out for the bull" at times. One thing we also have to remember is that many sources, such as soldiers' memoirs were written long after the war was over and they tend to overlook some aspects of how they might have felt about certain subjects such as slavery 20 or 30 years earlier.

I think it is fair to say that there were very many different viewpoints of the soldiers when it came to slavery, and for that matter, why each soldier went off to fight. Each state even fought for different reasons, especially the Southern States. The Deep South seceded for different reasons then did Tenn, Ark., NC, and VA. What it boils down to is a confusing mass of viewpoints and information that we try to teach or relate to the public, as much as we would like, we will almost never be able to get 100% of the point across, but we can hammer away and try to get as much to sink in as possible.
One way might be for 1st person interaction, have a couple different guys in your mess or unit take different viewpoints when you talk to the public. For example, if you are portraying a U.S. group, run the spectrum of what the predominant viewpoints would have been, you could even get unit specific, there were certainly some regiments that were diehard abolitionists, and there were others that were pretty upset when Lincoln publicized the Emancipation Proclamation.
I hope this has been more helpful then just me rambling, I've enjoyed checking in on this thread over the course of the day.

[jake.koch]

Forgot to add this in, for anyone interested in Tennessee, read Parties, Politics, and the Sectional Conflict in Tennessee 1832 - 1861. by Jonathan M. Atkins. I'm reading it for an independent study and thought it was an interesting way to look at the way things turned out in the different parts of Tennessee. Gives a good idea of the way that people from each side thought.

[Elaine Kessinger]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

"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]

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]

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]

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]

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 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. [I]Why most of them were still Union states is a whole argument in istself...

[lukegilly13]

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]

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 (http://books.google.com/books?pg=PA44&dq=rescues+date:0-1880&id=Q80SAAAAYAAJ&output=html)discuss some cases, and there was also the well-known Oberlin-Wellington rescue (http://books.google.com/books?id=-Im7K3ZuR1cC&printsec=toc&dq=oberlin+wellington+date:0-1880&output=html&source=gbs_summary_s&cad=0).

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]

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]

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.

[lukegilly13]

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.

Very wisely spoken! The main thing is to do your research and be able to back up everything you say...that way if someone gets offended, it's the history and not you personally.