Kevin Levin thinks slaves should be honored not for service to the Confederate Army but for "surviving the Confederacy." Honor, in this sense, means "a source of credit or distinction..." (per dictionary.com).
Frankly, Levin's assertion makes no sense. To survive means "to get along or remain healthy, happy, and unaffected in spite of some occurrence ... to endure or live through (an affliction, adversity, misery, etc.)..."
There was nothing about the Confederacy that made it a greater affliction, adversity or misery for slaves than the USA had been. Surviving slavery and/or war is worthy of honor, but the Confederacy was not slavery or war any more than the USA was slavery or war. Surviving slavery in the Confederacy for four years was no more honor-worthy than surviving it in the USA for several generations.
The condition of slaves in the Confederacy was no different than it had been in the USA. It was the military invasion of the south and the depredation of the invading army -- creating affliction, adversity and misery -- that made the difference between the two. Everyone in the Confederacy who survived that, slave and free, (and many did not survive it) deserves honor. Those who fought the invaders, slave and free, deserve special recognition and honor.
Somehow, it doesn't surprise me that a blogger motivated to evilize white Southerners refuses to see that.