Confederate re-enactors reflect on Civil War legacy: ‘We want them to remember’

Great article. A lot of it rings very true when I think about the people I reenact with.

“If you were a Confederate veteran at the end of the war, you weren’t allowed work down South because of the Carpetbaggers,” he said. “If you were a Vietnam veteran in the ’68-to-’69 time frame, you weren’t gonna get a job if you put it on your resume because we were drug addicts and baby killers. I see a lot of parallels.

“I’m a veteran of the Second Civil War,” said Mr. Perkins, who loaded bombs on planes as a sergeant in a ground crew at Da Nang Air Base in South Vietnam in 1966. “They had their Draft Riots, we had Kent State. They had their rebellious people, we had ours. They had people who went to Canada, we had people who went to Canada.”

I've made this same connection. And just as the image of Vietnam vets who were once often treated badly has been rehabilitated, I hope one day the image of Confederate soldiers will similarly undergo rehabilitation among the general public.

Us guys here - Union, Confederates - don’t have an agenda,” he said. “Our agenda is, we want to teach history. We want people to think. We want them to remember.”

Agreed. I feel the same.
 
Last edited:
... I hope one day the image of Confederate soldiers will similarly undergo rehabilitation among the general public...

I believe this is a very good thought and I agree with it completely.

Actually this had happened by the time of the Civil War Centennial in the 1960's until the Civil Rights movement starting around the same time and increasing steadily ever since set it back to where it is now.
 
Thank you @gem that is a very good article, and it has a lot to say to people. My only question is are they listening. I listened, read the article. I am already a believer in the message.
 
  • Like
Reactions: gem
I just ran the "Vietnam-Confederate" veteran comparison to an Elder who served off and on in country from 67-76, and he did not like the comparison one little bit. He did not like the idea of being compared to "a bunch of insurgents".

Okay, so he is not one to mince words :wink:
 
Last edited:
“If you were a Confederate veteran at the end of the war, you weren’t allowed work down South because of the Carpetbaggers,”


The BS indicator is going wild.
If you want to know the differences between a Cincinnati Depot fatigue blouse and a Schuylkill Arsenal blouse, reenactors are an awesome resource. Or, if you want to know how a regiment goes from column into line, again, reenactors are a fairly dependable way to go. But, when it comes to the actual history of the war and its causes, some of the worst interpretation I've ever heard came from the ill-informed mouths of reenactors. When I hear them say "Our agenda is we want to teach history" I only have to remember hearing one guy tell a bunch of eager listeners that Lincoln had been a slave owner before the war. At National Park sites, reenactors are typically limited to engaging with visitors about the material culture of soldiers and their experiences.
 
“If you were a Confederate veteran at the end of the war, you weren’t allowed work down South because of the Carpetbaggers,”

The BS indicator is going wild.

Lots of times, one single, erroneous remark like that can ruin an experience. That quote would have one think that 100% of Confederate veterans were unemployed due to Carpetbaggers... that's ridiculous.

Reenacting is a tool. In the rights hands it can useful. In the wrong hands, not so much.

I said this is another thread. Reenacting is great for teaching about military history and 19th century material culture. But the idea that reenacting is always, and inherently, an effective tool for explaining, for example, what caused the war is just not true, or at least, is not universally true. Reenactors certainly have more to say about political and social issues during the period than the average person, that's for sure, but that doesn't mean everything they say is right.

I tell people it's cool to go to reenactments, but understand there are some things they are good for, and some things they aren't.

- Alan
 
Last edited:
I actually I think historians with an agenda, and I say that after reading their sanctimonious and condensing twitter feeds, do more damage than a handful of re-enactors at random event.
That side hates every bit as much as the other and neither does anyone any good.

Although off-topic, I agree that you can never go wrong with condemning haters who have an agenda. Who could argue with that?

- Alan
 
Back
Top