FAKE REBS
Adam Domby’s excellent article in the fall issue [“Counterfeit Confederates,” Vol. 10, No. 3] about men who falsely claimed to fight for the South was a solid and necessary re-examination of the debunked Lost Cause narrative of the Civil War that was taught to me as a schoolboy in the 1960s.
And while it is true that undeserved war pensions did help lessen the number of destitute men after the war, it would be sad if their false claims now cast doubts on the memories of soldiers who did serve admirably on both sides.
Dale Gowing
Mooresville, North Carolina
* * *
Thanks for Adam Domby’s “Counterfeit Confederates” article. For those readers who might not know, it should be pointed out that the Supreme Court effectively erased the “crime” of stolen valor in a 2005 decision authored by Justice Anthony Kennedy.
Under the Stolen Valor Act of 2005, a public official named Xavier Alvarez was called to task for falsely claiming to have been awarded the Medal of Honor.
I put the word crime in quotes because Kennedy’s opinion for the court declared that we can’t have a “ministry of truth.” We would have been on a slippery slope if that statute were not held unconstitutional.
Keep up the good work folks!
Edward Keller
Central Islip, New York
Ed. Thanks for your note, Edward. We might note that Congress passed a revised Stolen Valor Act in 2013, one that says it’s illegal to make fraudulent claims about military service “with intent to obtain money, property, or other tangible benefit,” a provision added to keep it in line with the Supreme Court’s 2005 decision on the previous law.
* * *
While I enjoyed the latest issue of the Monitor, I feel I must react to a few points I disagree with. In the “Counterfeit Confederates” article, Adam Domby stated on page 53 that recognizing how hard ex-Confederates fought “ignored the war’s accomplishments.” No it doesn’t. That’s as incorrect as saying that recognizing how hard Japanese or German soldiers fought for what they believed in ignores that they were defeated in World War II. Does the losing team in the Super Bowl or World Series get their efforts totally negated simply because they didn’t win?
Worst of all was a comment about the “Lost Cause” in the same article. I am consistently disappointed by authors who put more emphasis on what elderly men said decades after the war than what they said during the war. What a man wrote in his letters written in the 1860s should carry a lot more weight than those written many years later. The vast majority of the letters I’ve read from soldiers in gray speak of battling tyranny and aggression; very few mention slavery. Slavery is not at the top of the “reasons why” list of the majority of the boys in blue who put their lives on the line. Are you now going to say that both sides were lying? I maintain that it is an insult to those who fought and died for what they believed in to have their motives changed to what someone else wants to say they fought for. Why are we trying to be politically correct, instead of being historically correct? The letters are there; read them, unless maybe you’re afraid to.
James Kocur
Via email
Ed. Thanks for your feedback, James. A few points. First, I believe you have misinterpreted Domby’s meaning by mixing two sentences that contain separate thoughts. In the first, Domby commented about the practice of placing both Confederate and U.S. flags on the New York cemetery grave of Andrew Hall, who in old age falsely claimed to have served in the Confederate army. “Such a decoration seen amid the nearby graves of Union army veterans might have implied that Confederate veterans had also fought for the United States, despite the fact that they explicitly fought against it,” he writes. Soon after, Domby notes, “Hall in his lifetime had often served as a symbol of sectional reconciliation. Indeed, he is representative of a time when elderly southerners were held up as heroes to facilitate a national healing that often purposely ignored the war’s accomplishments, chief among them the enfranchisement of African Americans.” With respect, Domby was not saying what you think he said.
With regards to your second point, you’re certainly correct that the letters, diaries, journals, etc., written by participants during the conflict are almost always more reliable sources than postwar memoirs and histories—when the goal is to learn about the war as it happened. But Domby, along with other scholars who have examined the impact of the war’s memory on postwar American society, is of course wise to consult works written in the decades after the conflict’s end. How better to discern the many ways in which Americans’ memories of the war evolved—and for what reasons?
* * *
I would like to thank The Civil War Monitor for publishing the excellent article “Counterfeit Confederates” by Adam Domby. For the 50-plus years that I have been a student of the American Civil War, I have read and heard countless times by myriad historians that history should be recorded as only truthful, honest, and factual. It is with this in mind that I find it so refreshing to see Domby finally address an issue that has been politely sidestepped and unashamedly protested for far too long. Truth be told, whether it is dispelling the myths of the “Lost Cause,” the exaggerated use of painkilling drugs by General John Bell Hood, or the untimely drunkenness of General Ulysses S. Grant.
Domby does his profession high honor by broaching this much distorted subject with demonstrably evident sources and undeniable firsthand accounts. Likewise, The Civil War Monitor proves itself as the reliable source of period information that has and will continue to keep me as a faithful subscriber. Thank you, again.
Patrick J. Westefer
Wyoming, Illinois
GOOD STUFF
I just finished the latest issue of your fine publication. The Civil War Monitor continues to amaze. I have been a charter subscriber since issue one.
I particularly liked the article by Andrew Bledsoe about the Battle of Franklin [“The Hero of Franklin,” Vol 10, No. 3]. Kudos to the author. I’m of course familiar with the Battle of Franklin, but Bledsoe’s insightful article brought out many details I had no idea about.
I also subscribe to several other Civil War publications, but the Monitor continues to break new ground. It’s apparent a lot of work and effort goes into each issue. I just wish it was published more often—like monthly or semimonthly!
Ken Lyle
Via email
A PINT-SIZED HERO
I just read Ronald Coddington’s article on the youngest person to be awarded the Medal of Honor, Willie Johnston [“Faces of War: A Pint-Sized Hero,” Vol. 10, No. 3]. Unfortunately, the article only included a short statement on Willie’s later life, so I looked him up on Wikipedia and found some additional information on his later years, including that he applied for admission to West Point but didn’t get in. I thought you might like to know. Thanks for an interesting article.
Jim Luckinbill
Via email
SAINT ABE
I am a new subscriber and enjoying your magazine very much. I had a question, however, about Mark Grimsley’s latest American Iliad column, “A Man of Sorrows” [Vol. 10, No. 3], in which he states: “Lincoln is the closest thing we have to an American saint….” Taken literally, this statement is incorrect. There are at least four Catholic saints from America, the most famous ones probably St. Elizabeth Ann Seton and St. Kateri Tekakwitha. Of course, if Grimsley is only speaking of men or women politicians, then he is probably correct in that Lincoln “is the closest thing we have.” However, he does not make clear what he means.
Matthew A. Hamilton
Via email
Ed. Thanks much for your note—and the kind words. As for Mark Grimsley’s meaning, I’m confident that he was referring to Lincoln as a “secular saint,” not a literal one.
HANG IN THERE
I realize COVID-19 has been a factor in producing issues, but I do appreciate your efforts in getting it done and maintaining a quality publication. I look forward to future special issues as they become available.
Allen Gaines
Via email
Ed. Thanks very much for the encouraging words, Allen. COVID-19 has been a disruptive force to us all, and the Monitor is no exception. Yet with the continued support of our loyal readers—like you—we’re confident we will continue to weather the storm. As for another special issue, we’re hoping we might release one in the fall of 2021 … conditions permitting!
