Anita,
Thanks for this. This is a subject I may follow up on at some point,
mainly for my children, than for a scholarly purpose.
The story--again from my great uncle--is that his grandfather, the son of
the veteran, far from passing for white, married a Scots-Irish woman as a
free man of color in Kentucky. This necessitated a move later north to Ohio
as Kentucky developed as a slave society. Presumably the Rev. War veteran
had received a veterans land warrant for Kentucky (then western Virginia.)
Thus, an African-American southern family become northerners, finally
settling in Pittburgh in the 1830s (when many free blacks were expelled from
Ohio.)
Harold
----- Original Message -----
From: "Anita Wills" <[log in to unmask]>
To: <[log in to unmask]>
Sent: Sunday, October 09, 2005 1:55 PM
Subject: Re: Surrender at Yorktown to be Commemorated October 18-22, 2006
> Harold,
> One of the problems is that there were no racial designations on the
> rosters themselves. If you are looking for an ancestor, you need to follow
> the surname. Also, you may be able to locate the roster by checking the
> DAR Library, and locating the papers of the commanding officer. Many of
> those who were Persons of Color, have descendants who have crossed racial
> lines. That seems to be a sensitive issue in Virginia, and it is opening a
> can of worms.
>
> Anita
>
>
>
>
> -- Debra Jackson/Harold Forsythe <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> Anita,
>
> It is Harold writing. Debra is reading microfilm in another room.
> I see your point and I tried to put this controversy to rest by providing
> a kind of meta-analysis that attempts to explain why these erasures happen
> and why they are so irritation.
> My great uncle (a WW I vet) wrote me shortly before he died that his
> great
> grandfather was a Revolutionary War veteran from Virginia who was
> manumitted
> for his military service.
> Some just resist the idea that there were brown faces among the Founders.
>
> best,
>
> Harold
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Anita Wills" <[log in to unmask]>
> To: <[log in to unmask]>
> Sent: Sunday, October 09, 2005 1:23 PM
> Subject: Re: Surrender at Yorktown to be Commemorated October 18-22, 2006
>
>
>> Debra,
>>
>> It seems that some people feel as if I am ruining their celebration. They
>> do not understand that it is all Americans celebration. The only unit of
>> color included in the celebrations is the Rhode Island Corp. Yet Natives
>> and Free blacks from Virginia fought at The Siege of Yorktown. I supplied
>> the Historians at Colonial Yorktown with the roster which contained all
>> of
>> the names of The Amherst County Soldiers, believing they would be made a
>> part of the official roster. Yet, Colonial William Cabells name in
>> listed,
>> and so is Marquis De Lafayette. How is it that their names are included
>> but the names of the troops are left out?
>>
>> I believe we should correct the record whenever possible, otherwise, it
>> is
>> not history, just someones version of it.
>>
>> Anita
>>
>> -- Debra Jackson/Harold Forsythe <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>> Hello All:
>>
>> I have been pondering whether to enter into this controversy about the
>> Battle of Yorktown and its commemoration or not. Finally, I conclude
>> that
>> I
>> have a few things or use to share with the list.
>>
>> The national ambivalence about sharing the real constitution of armies
>> from our most sacred battlefields is a constant for Americans. David
>> Blight
>> begins his Beyond the Battlefield with a long description of the 1913
>> commemoration of the Battle of Gettysburg, from which blacks were barred.
>> While it is true that there were no USCT regiments present, there were
>> black
>> Pennsylvania militia units in the area and African-American wage support
>> workers with the Army of the Potomac.
>> The reality that soldiers in our Civil War as in our War for
>> Independence
>> saw was altered later for essentially political reasons. The simple
>> reason
>> being that in the Antebellum era and again in the Gilded Age-Progressive
>> Era, The USA was reconceived as a white entity.
>> This point was powerfully illustrated for me by an art historian who
>> spoke
>> at the Rubin Lecture in American Art History at the Metropolitan Museum
>> of
>> Art back in I think 2002. The lecture was on the painting of William
>> Sydney
>> Mount, a New York artist and Democratic political activist. Mount was
>> from
>> Long Island and lived in an area that had always been populated by many
>> black families; first as slaves, then as free men and women. Most of
>> Mount's painting portrayed these black men and women, the models probably
>> his neighbors, often painted into the foreground of the canvasses. But
>> one
>> painting, which has a young man sipping cider through a straw from a
>> barrel
>> is the one major Mount canvass that contains no black people (or Indians)
>> at
>> all. This scholar explained that Mount painted this piece to be his
>> allegory for America. I found this remarkably interesting. Blacks, of
>> necessity appeared in Mount's optic, but not in his politics. Thus, in
>> his
>> career as a painter he constantly portrayed black people but on the one
>> canvass that was an allegory of his Democratic politics he erased them.
>> What Ms. Wills is remarking on is this erasure. It can be a very
>> emotional issue for some of us because the erasure is both a lie and an
>> affront. I am not familiar with the details of commemoration at Yorktown
>> but I hope that we can reach agreement on the larger point: when serious
>> scholarship shows the presence of blacks and others subsequently erased
>> from
>> important moments in American history, all of us on this list see this as
>> an
>> historical error.
>> We may not have the leverage to change organizational behavior at
>> Jamestown, or Williamsburg, or Gettyburg, but I am certain that we have
>> the
>> common rationality to observe emerging historical documentation and stand
>> in
>> broad agreement on their general significance. Then we can take weeks
>> arguing about the more nuanced conclusions we draw from that evidence.
>>
>> Harold S. Forsythe
>> Visiting Fellow (2005-2006)
>> Program in Agrarian Studies
>> Yale University
>> ----- Original Message -----
>> From: "Anne Pemberton" <[log in to unmask]>
>> To: <[log in to unmask]>
>> Sent: Sunday, October 09, 2005 10:12 AM
>> Subject: Re: Surrender at Yorktown to be Commemorated October 18-22, 2006
>>
>>
>>>I agree that Anita is not being oversensative. She may not phrase her
>>> concerns in the proper tone, but her comments are well worth taking
>>> seriously.
>>>
>>> We have a problem with children taking an interest in history. When we
>>> celebrate history, we should make it a point to include all participants
>>> so
>>> that children can see the wide participation in historical events. We
>>> owe
>>> it to our school children as well as interested adults to include the
>>> honors
>>> and recognition for past deed as widely as we can and still be accurate.
>>>
>>> If the information to make this more accurate is available, it should be
>>> happily included, not stiff-armed.
>>>
>>> Anne
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Anne Pemberton
>>> [log in to unmask]
>>> http://www.erols.com/stevepem
>>> http://www.erols.com/apembert
>>> http://www.educationalsynthesis.org
>>>
>>> To subscribe, change options, or unsubscribe, please see the
>>> instructions
>>> at http://listlva.lib.va.us/archives/va-hist.html
>>>
>>
>> To subscribe, change options, or unsubscribe, please see the instructions
>> at http://listlva.lib.va.us/archives/va-hist.html
>>
>> To subscribe, change options, or unsubscribe, please see the instructions
>> at http://listlva.lib.va.us/archives/va-hist.html
>>
>
> To subscribe, change options, or unsubscribe, please see the instructions
> at http://listlva.lib.va.us/archives/va-hist.html
>
> To subscribe, change options, or unsubscribe, please see the instructions
> at http://listlva.lib.va.us/archives/va-hist.html
>
To subscribe, change options, or unsubscribe, please see the instructions
at http://listlva.lib.va.us/archives/va-hist.html
|
