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