Hi Jim,

Thanks for welcoming me to your board and the kind words about the Lincoln Studies site. Who knew that an article on Lincoln’s facial asymmetry could generate a discussion about “neo-Confederates?”

George Purvis also directed me to that previous thread titled, “What is a neo-Confederate?” I read through it and it looked like things got pretty heated. But in the long-run, I think such discussions have the potential to be quite useful. However, I think we need to add some context to the discussion.

David Blight has written a fine book titled _Race and Reunion: The Civil War in American Memory_, which examines the 50 year period after the Civil War. In the name of reconciliation and economic prosperity, Blight argues, Americans wrote slavery out of the Civil War narrative. No longer interested in “re-fighting the war,” they dropped the most contentious issue (slavery) and instead chose to celebrate something each side could agree on, namely the countless acts of valor carried out by soldiers wearing both blue and gray.

You might recall seeing newsreel footage of the 50th reunion of the Battle of Gettysburg in which Union and Confederate veterans walked the battlefield side-by-side. Blight points out that one group was conspicuously absent from the footage. Where are the African Americans? By 1913, slavery had faded from historical memory and the consequences proved catastrophic for African Americans. In the name of reconciliation, Americans had “participated in an enterprise that deeply influenced the white supremacist vision of Civil War memory,” Blight writes. A fine example of such an interpretation is _A Birth of a Nation_.

I certainly do not believe there is anything wrong with celebrating an ancestor who fought for the Union or for the Confederacy. Like so many others, I too can count ancestors in blue and gray. My reading of Blight suggests he doesn’t think there is anything wrong with it either, but we need balance.

In light of the Civil Rights movement, twentieth century historians began to reexamine the work of their nineteenth century predecessors. Kenneth Stampp and James McPherson are but two examples of historians who have devoted their careers to bringing balance (discussions of slavery) back to the Civil War narrative. And yes, they have been labeled “neo-abolitionists” by some, but that is the nature of historical scholarship. I suppose we have a need to group people into categories.

In my view, the term neo-Confederate certainly gets thrown around rather recklessly. Too often the term gets used by people who want to dismiss an idea or an author, but they don’t want to do the intellectual legwork. Instead of gathering evidence, some find it easier to take a shortcut and label someone a “neo-Confederate.”

You asked me how I define a neo-Confederate. That is an interesting question. I suppose my definition of a neo-Confederate is someone who is interested in revising American history by excising slavery from the Civil War narrative. It is not only historically inaccurate, but I fear that such revisionism can be driven by a deeper political agenda.

Best,
Sam.