"Who held up Washington's standards?" Topic

March 8, 1861: Met a distinguished gentleman that I knew when he was in more affluent circumstances. I was willing enough to speak to him, but when he saw me advancing for that purpose, to avoid me, he suddenly dodged around a corner – William, Mrs. de Saussure's former coachman. I remember him on his box, driving a handsome pair of bays, dressed sumptuously in blue broadcloth and brass buttons; a stout, respectable, fine-looking, middle-aged mulatto. He was very high and mighty.
        Night after night we used to meet him as fiddler-in-chief of all our parties. He sat in solemn dignity, making faces over his bow, and patting his foot with an emphasis that shook the floor. We gave him five dollars a night; that was his price. His mistress never refused to let him play for any party. He had stable-boys in abundance. He was far above any physical fear for his sleek and well-fed person. How majestically he scraped his foot as a sign that he was tuned up and ready to begin!
        Now he is a shabby creature indeed. He must have felt his fallen fortunes when he met me – one who knew him in his prosperity. He ran away, this stately yellow gentleman, from wife and children, home and comfort. My Molly asked him "Why? Miss Liza was good to you, I know." I wonder who owns him now; he looked forlorn.

June 27 1861 Mr. Lamar, who does not love slavery more than Sumner does, nor than I do, laughs at the compliment New England pays us. We want to separate from them; to be rid of the Yankees forever at any price. And they hate us so, and would clasp us, or grapple us, as Polonius has it, to their bosoms "with hooks of steel." We are an unwilling bride. I think incompatibility of temper began when it was made plain to us that we got all the opprobrium of slavery and they all the money there was in it with their tariff.

Last ones, from the end of the war. (There's plenty more in between, to read if you want to understand).

Was the war about slavery? In part, of course, but this couple, fervent Confederate patriots, did not think so:
April 23, 1865
 These negroes are unchanged. The shining black mask they wear does not show a ripple of change; they are sphinxes. Ellen has had my diamonds to keep for a week or so. When the danger was over she handed them back to me with as little apparent interest in the matter as if they had been garden peas.
One year ago we left Richmond. The Confederacy has double-quicked down hill since then. One year since I stood in that beautiful Hollywood by little Joe Davis's grave. Now we have burned towns, deserted plantations, sacked villages. "You seem resolute to look the worst in the face," said General Chesnut, wearily. "Yes, poverty, with no future and no hope." "But no slaves, thank God!" cried Buck.

May 4 1865
 The fidelity of the negroes is the principal topic. There seems to be not a single case of a negro who betrayed his master, and yet they showed a natural and exultant joy at being free. After we left Winnsboro negroes were seen in the fields plowing and hoeing corn, just as in antebellum times. The fields in that respect looked quite cheerful. We did not pass in the line of Sherman's savages, and so saw some houses standing.
        Mary Kirkland has had experience with the Yankees. She has been pronounced the most beautiful woman on this side of the Atlantic, and has been spoiled accordingly in all society. When the Yankees came, Monroe, their negro manservant, told her to stand up and hold two of her children in her arms, with the other two pressed as close against her knees as they could get. Mammy Selina and Lizzie then stood grimly on each side of their young missis and her children. For four mortal hours the soldiers surged through the rooms of the house. Sometimes Mary and her children were roughly jostled against the wall, but Mammy and Lizzie were stanch supporters. The Yankee soldiers taunted the negro women for their foolishness in standing by their cruel slave-owners, and taunted Mary with being glad of the protection of her poor ill-used slaves. Monroe meanwhile had one leg bandaged and pretended to be lame, so that he might not be enlisted as a soldier, and kept making pathetic appeals to Mary.
        "Don't answer them back, Miss Mary," said he. "Let 'em say what dey want to; don't answer 'em back. Don't give 'em any chance to say you are impudent to 'em."

J. H. Boykin was at home at the time to look after his own interests, and he, with John de Saussure, has saved the cotton on their estates, with the mules and farming utensils and plenty of cotton as capital to begin on again. The negroes would be a good riddance. A hired man would be a good deal cheaper than a man whose father and mother, wife and twelve children have to be fed, clothed, housed, and nursed, their taxes paid, and their doctor's bills, all for his half-done, slovenly, lazy work. For years we have thought negroes a nuisance that did not pay. They pretend exuberant loyalty to us now. Only one man of Mr. Chesnut's left the plantation with the Yankees.

Again, what the hell does that have to do with who carried Washington's standard? Absolutely nothing.

I have been rather forcefully told by Editor Bill much earlier that even though I started the original poll suggestion to set up the American Revolution Board, that I do not own or control it.
HOWEVER, I cannot but feel resentment at how every single recent thread concerning the WARGAMING of the American Revolution gets hijacked and sidetracked into irrelevant ramblings on Rousseau, Locke, the Great Awakening, etc.
A simple question on who carried Washington's standard has rambled on to this train wreck.

If I ask about how Hessians managed to keep their brass miter caps polished, I can't help but think that it would get hijacked into irrelevance about Voltaire committing unnatural acts at Sans Souci.

As Bill has reminded me, it is NOT my Board and I accept that.
But, oh how I wish to see a discussion on whether the Osprey book on the Point Pleasant campaign is worth it, and how it affected the early war in Virginia. Especially if I can glean maps and OOB for a miniatures game.

+1 to John the OFM.

If people really feel the need to expose their political views, that's what Facebook is for. Knock yourself out.

Or better yet, start your own topic.

My suggestion was that a body servant might carry it. The discussion angled out from that. But what is hard about not reading what does not interest you?

Do you also buy the W. Britains 54mm AWI figures?

Sometimes and I have a few. The current ones are not as elegant as the Imrie/figures nor as many drill positions.

When I was teaching US history I put together about 200 Imrie/Risley figures which were organized as a company of Continental artillery, a two-company infantry battalion, and a company of Continental artillery. There was also a company of the 3d Continental Light Dragoons with a few Philadelphia Light Horse thrown in for good measure. There were standards that I made for the units, and Washington was present with his headquarters standard being carried by a trooper from the Philadelphia Light Horse. The infantry battalion commander was mounted.

I also had their galloper hitched up to the horse and a field piece limbered up. With the exception of the civilian artillery drivers, the troops were all Continentals-in regulation uniform, hunting shirts, and shirt-sleeves. The overall effect of the uniform mix was excellent.

The students really liked them.

+1 to both John and to historygamer.

Both are correct, immeasurably so.

One more comment on Washington's command flag and who might have carried it…

Washington, as he should have been as the army commander, was always mounted in action. The command flag was used to show the rest of the army, or at least those units close enough to see it, the location of the commander. That being the case, the standard bearer would have to be mounted to keep up when Washington changed his location.

Just an (un)educated guess. 👌

Well then, to capture the exact moment depicted in Peale's painting, have a large base with a dismounted Light Horseman, but with a standing empty horse nearby, held by a mounted LH figure.
A nice diorama base would be appropriate. You aren't flitting about doing charges carry the CinC's flag. Or I hope not. However…
Volley and Bayonet has what they call a "Monarch" rule, meaning that the army would not permit a beloved important leader (Lee and Napoleon are cited examples) to participate in a charge or expose himself to danger. Washington often would ignore that "advice". But it's a nice "chrome" rule that shouldn't affect game okay much.

Napoleon was also under fire more often than not. He was wounded in action at least twice and had nineteen horses shot out from under him during the course of the wars.

I haven't seen any evidence where the Grande Armee 'would not permit' Napoleon to 'expose himself to danger.'

During the pursuit of the Anglo-Dutch army to Waterloo, Napoleon led his Guard duty squadrons personally in the pursuit.

And Napoleon's usual practice in combat was to place himself just behind the army's advance guard. In point of fact, 'in action, he was fearless.'

It wasn't wholesome. Why do you imagine that I think it was? But it was DIFFERENT from the relationship with a field hand the owner never spoke to.

Probably because it seems you are fighting very hard too establish a dubious point. Incidentally, what exactly ARE you trying to establish? OK, not every slave owner was brutal every minute of every day.

Sounds like some version of Stockholm Syndrome and/or the mass delusion that slaves led a carefree and happy life.

Try to forget all the mis-conceptions you have been taught.

OK, Should I replace them with the ones you are pushing?

Go read Chesnut's DIARY FROM DIXIE to get a clear sense of the relationship.

Why would I read this? I have other things to read. Why are you always flinging books and documents at people? We cant discuss slavery unless we read every book ever written on it?

@Brechtel

It sounds like you have a very nice collection. You also game with these minis?

@John the OFM

Well then, to capture the exact moment depicted in Peale's painting, have a large base with a dismounted Light Horseman, but with a standing empty horse nearby, held by a mounted LH figure.
A nice diorama base would be appropriate. You aren't flitting about doing charges carry the CinC's flag. Or I hope not. However…

Interesting. That's quite lavish and impractical…I like it!

Kevin, it's just an optional rule in a game I don't play.

Sounds like some version of Stockholm Syndrome and/or the mass delusion that slaves led a carefree and happy life.

Something like the Stockholm Syndrome was probably present, yes. At least that is one way to understand part of it.

I doubt any humans live happy and carefree lives for long, but the planters argued, with some truth, that the children on a plantation were not required to work in the fields, in contrast with the child labor in contemporary New England mills. And old slaves were cared for after they could no longer work, in contrast to free workers at the time (no Social Security!)

The planters may have considered that a defense of slavery, but we don't have to. It is the truth, though.

That "Truth" was a carefully crafted state of denial. A form of auto-manipulative pantomime where everyone knew their place and indeed had a place. A sort of candied, methane fugue which, if you just pinched your nose, allowed one to believe that this was the way it always was and was always meant to be.

I would imagine that for many it was a sweet, concrete and comfortable dream, as long as the people who wanted to be in charge, made sure they were in charge.

However, when that reality was either challenged or even criticized, nay questioned, we can see the sort of violent, churlish, infantile overreactions they had.

Doc, do you REALLY believe that Plantation Utopia nonsense?
The beloved and benign Massa? Taking care of the help from cradle to grave?
Really?

No utopia, for certain. Mary Chesnut COMPLAINED of the need to take care of her slaves from cradle to grave. Whether Massa was beloved, who now could say? That some were relatively benign is clear enough from the evidence. Just as there are benign prison guards. The abolitionists then, and some now, made it their priority to dramatize the evils of slavery, which existed. Chesnut is a good bit more balanced than many of them, but of course hers is still just one viewpoint (top down) and as always the question is what was the NORM. Genovese's ROLL JORDAN ROLL: THE WORLD THE SLAVES MADE, is the best single work on the slave-holding south in all of its complexity and paradoxes. Morality plays are satisfying and of course contain SOME truth, but rarely anywhere close to all the truth.

Charge, that is certainly partly right. Everyone knew their place, as is the case in feudal societies. And there was plenty of denial, after 1831 when Nat Turner terrified the south and the abolitionist crusade took off. But look again at this episode quoted above:

March 26 1861 John Chesnut is a pretty soft-hearted slave-owner. He had two negroes arrested for selling whisky to his people on his plantation, and buying stolen corn from them. The culprits in jail sent for him. He found them (this snowy weather) lying in the cold on a bare floor, and he thought that punishment enough; they having had weeks of it. But they were not satisfied to be allowed to evade justice and slip away. They begged of him (and got) five dollars to buy shoes to run away in. I said: "Why, this is flat compounding a felony." And Johnny put his hands in the armholes of his waistcoat and stalked majestically before me, saying, "Woman, what do you know about law?"

Were the two negroes arrested for selling whiskey to Chesnut's people slaves themselves? Perhaps not; at least they were free agents, in crime and in negotiating with Chesnut, buying shoes and running away. We don't know enough to be sure what was going on there, but everything looks a good bit LOOSER than we might imagine.

I would imagine that for many it was a sweet, concrete and comfortable dream, as long as the people who wanted to be in charge, made sure they were in charge.

No doubt, and perhaps just like today.

Remember that we are discussing an institution and society that lasted 200+ years, affecting millions of people. It certainly changed over time and varied as people in general vary. Moreover, it was largely governed by state laws, so there were at least 15 or more relevant jurisdictions. Questions like "was it legal to teach a slave to read" are simply unanswerable; it IS possible to answer that question for a specific state in a specific year, but even then you don't know to what extent the law was obeyed. (Chesnut describes teaching a slave to read, though it was illegal when she did so.) So it is very difficult to make valid generalizations about slavery; the exceptions may outnumber the rule. It is hard to know what the norm was. Of course slavery is always evil, and always bad in some ways. But it is not easy to say HOW bad, or bad in WHICH ways. People are impatient with complexity, but reality is usually complex. We can always begin by condemning it. But some believe it is also important to UNDERSTAND it.

WE are discussing? Whom do you think you're fooling? YOU are hammering us.

I mean, I dont mind a little drift to a conversation but you do manage to get your grand truthful design about how the past should control the present at just about every juncture.

Who cares about these anecdotes? What is this palaver that slavery is evil but white people in the South were do-gooders? What about the tens of thousands of stories of brutality? You're just going to ignore those and look for the exception? So some white lady dabbed some slave's lips with a sponge dipped in vinegar. I never heard of whites wanting to switch places; OK, so they create a subclass and then pretend to make charitable gestures. Big deal.

As a mass, the South held onto that slavery business because it was good for them and even after the rest of world (Well, the Western World) condemned it as bad. They knew it was wrong, that's why they had militias to guard against uprisings that never came to pass; because if the roles were reversed, they knew they wouldn't like it.

Incidentally, slavery has not been the same throughout the world and history. This particular brand was extra rotten because it developed a racial cast to it.

Now what all this has to do with a gymnastic distortion of the concept of truth, I do not know. But we can see what at least one man considers the truth here from "Land of Hope An Invitation to the Great American Story by Wilfred M. McClay":

Andrew Jackson (1767–1845)… He became the nation's first populist leader, an appeal confirmed by his being denied the presidency by the political establishment of his day in the election of 1824, in which he received the largest number of popular and Electoral votes but failed to gain a majority. When Henry Clay's support tipped the result to John Quincy Adams, and Adams responded by making Clay his secretary of state, Jackson's supporters cried "corrupt bargain!" With their support, Jackson came roaring back to victory in 1828, knocking the elites back on their heels…

Is this "truth" or "propaganda"? And, further, is it written out of honesty or a belief that people believe the jingoistic jibber jabber they get programmed into them?

Knocking the elites back indeed. One wonders if he is speaking about Jackson's time or our own?

In any case, you yourself are creating the complexities by interweaving truths and facts but only when they're convenient. The fact that there were a lot of people in America who thought slavery benign may be a fact but it doesn't make it the truth and I see no reason to carve a special place out for this concept. No doubt most criminals do not believe they're really committing a crime either

Consider the standard issue of planters sexually abusing slave women. It certainly happened, and Mary Chesnut, no doubt speaking for southern white women in general, was quite bitter about it. BUT, logically, merely showing that it occurred is not an indictment of slavery per se, for the simple reason that powerful men exploit vulnerable women in ANY and ALL human societies. (And of course women may use sex as a means of improving their lot.) To make a case that slavery is MORE evil than other human societies, one would have to show that such abuse was MORE prevalent there than in general elsewhere. I think that was probably the case, as power combined with proximity; but it is not certain. Genovese argued that both slave society and also planter society had strong sanctions in place to limit such sexual wickedness; slaves could cost a planter thousands of dollars simply by slowing down at harvest time, if they believed they were being unfairly treated. As with other aspects of slavery, it is complexity compounded, and easy to yield to the temptation to fall back on anecdotes because we simply lack the data to make generalizations.

I'm not clear what your point is about Jackson. There are many interpretations of his presidency but I think all agree that he was a populist.

Glad you have access to LOH. I'm interested in your reaction to his Epilogue on the shape of American patriotism.

As to "benign slavery" not even all of the south believed that. I think the majority of its defenders saw it as a necessary evil, though there were some who saw it as a positive thing. That slavery did great harm to all the south was a widely held view. They believed themselves to be trapped in it.

The trends that matter are that the western world was moving away from slavery. The South knew this and not only did not care but made it a point to defy that trend which reached a level of pathos. In fact, there was a dedication to hang onto slavery in spite of and, indeed, without examining both its rationale and efficacy which points to it all representing more than an economic concern. Thus, the South gave us a picture of a region that had no plan, no practicality for the future and lived in terror of both not being able to feel superior to blacks but also not being able to dominate them.

Now, we understand that you are fascinated by some nuances in attitude towards slavery but the facts remain that somehow, the Southern powers-that-were have always seemed to come out on top as the dominant force whether it was against freedom, civil rights or opposing measures to achieve a just society.

Additionally, your personal interest in rehabilitating Americans (Both Northern and Southern) does tend to muck up conversations that are a world apart from the topic. The idea that because you want to keep reminding everyone that not every Southerner was Simon Legree and thus maybe Billy carried Washington's HQ flag is as odd as if when speaking about Mongol invasions, I kept reminding everyone at every turn that there were non-violent Mongols too. Whatever your ultimate mission is here, it gives me the impression of a control mechanism where you hold the power to derail each and every discussion with some picayune correction.

Your first paragraph is mostly my sense of it as well. The mostly is because there WERE southerners who saw the problems you cite pretty clearly, and hated slavery as a result. (And might still be staunch Confederate patriots, as the Chesnuts were). But that part of the southern leadership that defended the "peculiar institution" as a positive good were indeed as you describe them.
As to your second paragraph, you are free to hate the south, as I am free to try to see her clearly. There are now and have long been those who try to make the south the scapegoat for American sins. It is understandable, perhaps,, from a political perspective, to have someone to blame, as it removes the need for self criticism.

Americans, God's "almost chosen people" as Lincoln described us, have achieved great things and also sinned greatly. Rather like the old Hebrews. Finding the proper balance in judging ourselves is itself a great challenge, and endlessly fascinating.

Did you look at McClay's epilogue on the shape of American patriotism ?

I wonder what kind of wood was used for Washington's standard?🙄

Alexander's Foot Companions had their pikes made from cornel wood.

Yak butter is the principle export of Tibet.

As noted by the great Scottish standup philosophers William Connolly and Craig Ferguson, Barry Manilow did NOT write "I Write the Songs".

you are free to hate the south, as I am free to try to see her clearly.

This is outrageous. You are of course free to have whatever beliefs you please but your assumption that you see more clearly than do I is erroneous.

There are now and have long been those who try to make the south the scapegoat for American sins. It is understandable, perhaps,, from a political perspective, to have someone to blame, as it removes the need for self criticism.

Well, fair enough but let this be a learning experience for racists everywhere that it is unfair to lump everyone into the same category. Perhaps this example will demonstrate how certain oppressed groups have felt for a long time now.

When I finish McClay's book, I'll let you know.

I think I am leaning toward a 3rd dragoon std bearer for good old George. Mostly because having that uniform on a command vignette base echoes the stand alone 3rd dragoon unit and lends the entire collection a sort of theme.

Faulkner wrote assuming that slavery was America' inescapable Original Sin.

While I prefer to restrict OS to its theological application, I confess that I have used that phrase myself. It has some merit. Didn't realize it was Faulkner. Do you recall where he wrote that?

Flannery OConnor would probably agree, with her "Christ-haunted south:"

As I recall, it was from a college American Literature course. That was back when colleges offered American Literature classes, back in the 70s.

If slavery is going to be discussed, why not move it to the Civil War forum? Just making a suggestion…

I've posted a response to the 'slavery issue' on the Civil War boards which does not defend or support slavery.

Is there anyone now on the other side of that debate? Anyone today defending or supporting slavery? I do not think so.

You do seem to both condemn slavery and yet excuse the people who were responsible for it. I dont know how this can stand. Maybe the slave owners were secretly forced to have slaves or their families would suffer?

Do you know the story of Washington's attempt to free his people? Va law would have required them to leave the state, and their homes. And do what, where? GW tried to find alternatives, but failed. He, and they, were trapped in an evil system. Of course I sympathize. You should too.

Doc. Kevin started a discussion today elsewhere.
Let's take the discussion there, instead of hijacking this thread to Cuba and back.
Me, I'm done with it, and agree with Au pas de charge's last comment.
You seem to be both condemning slavery and at the same time arguing that it had to continue.
Johnny Cash sang to Nixon "Each week we lose a hundred fine young men."
In the ACW, both sides lost a lot more than that, and YES, it was all about slavery. Nothing else even remotely came close.

Explain then why Lincoln was prepared to accept the Corwin Amendment guaranteeing the continuation of slavery where it existed. It was the EXPANSION of slavery into the west. Nothing else came remotely close.

I condemn slavery but rooting it out required a war that was perhaps as bad.

This is why Lincoln was glad to act against slavery AFTER the war to preserve the Union began; he had already incurred the terrible blood price, and could at least get two good things (union and abolition) for the one great cost.

Holy crap…so much for Washington's flag.

Doc…
Oh, I give up. Just take it to Kevin's thread.

The name I keep running into is Eli McVey. Family history claims he was Washington's flag bearer. No hard evidence. No primary source documents.

link

Any idea to what unit he belonged, if any?

Eli McVey of Franklin Co., WV was George Washington's flag bearer in the Revolutionary War.

An interesting find; if for no other reason than that someone thought it important enough to set down. It reinforces that Washington did indeed have someone tote his standard around.

Richard McVey b 5 May 1810, d 14 Dec 1862

I guess we know generally what happened to this McVey.

He couldn't have been from WVa before 1862, which is about 80 years after the RevoWar.

Although it can certainly be investigated, it seems possible that either WVA was referred to by that name even before it officially became a state, or, like the following link, olden places are identified by modern names for the understanding of modern readers.

jeff560.tripod.com/raleigh.html

He most certainly could have been from western Virginia…😉

Found this

link

"I believe this is a fact. Eli McVey [1768 VA d. Mar. 28, 1849] is in the Smithsonian as flag bearer of George Washington, he was selected to carry the flag, as he was tall and Gen.Washington wanted his troops to see the flag.Hope this helps, just google it."

Not sure what "…is in the Smithsonian as flag bearer of George Washington…" means exactly. I conducted a search on the Smithsonian website using both names and each name, different spellings, flag and flag bearer ect. I got nothing.

Keep in mind not everything in the Smithsonian or any museum, will be available for online search.

I always take "family history" with a huge grain of salt.
That's where we get the legends of Betsy Ross, Timothy Murphy, the Bedford Minutemen flag, etc.
I'm just suspicious of anything that pops up in the 1820s or later.

And as Kevin asks, what unit would he be in? I'm adking this because I want to know what uniform, or figure to choose.