1. I’m not sure what you mean by a “lack of context and balance.”
2. No one is trying to “suppress or control Confederate commemoration.” As far as I am concerned you should be free to celebrate your “respective heritage” and I’ve never suggested otherwise.
3. The word “complexity” is used often because the study of history is, in fact, complex and incredibly difficult to do well.

The fact that many fail to view history with that period’s reality results in today’s controversy. Whether defending a Consitutionally-legal, economically-viable, and well-established way of life from the nation’s founding or resisting invasion, combined with the fact that 13 states with others divided rebelled is not for any one person or committee, etc. to suggest policy changes regarding its remembrance. It’s simply too large a part of American history for anyone or even significant groups to pretend to have the ability to “correctly” steer how it is remembered, celebrated, and commemorated.

Every argument I’ve read to suppress or control Confederate commemoration could be applied to the stars and bars at some point. Simply stating that one side won and the other lost, that one group opposes and the other advocates, that some are insulted and others are proud is proof enough to reveal that this country is anything but homogenous. Why we can’t celebrate our respective heritages is beyond me and reflects a severe lack of tolerance.

The word “complexity” gets used a lot here and appears more or less a smokescreen used to detract attention away from the primary goals and movements of the war. Union soldiers came into the South’s “backyards” because of their objectives and resources, where Confederates were best served to fight defensively. It’s as if some believe that if they divide an issue narrowly enough, then they can reach whatever conclusion that they were hoping to make, but that ignores reality. I can assure you that “retiring” Confederate culture will fail.

So, in the modern act of “Confederate remembrance,” I think there is a lot of failure in a reflection of actually understanding the complexities. More importantly, what do people who witness these events take away from them, in terms of influencing their views on history? After all, whether intentional or not, do these events not convey a message that goes beyond someone simply participating to honor his/her Confederate ancestor? Some might even say that they are a form of rhetoric. As a tool of persuasion, some of these events are painting a false picture of the past. It’s not history, but the way that some people are remembering history. In the long run, events of such limited focus (on the Confederacy) are, as I mentioned before, marketed to the general public as instruments of absolutes in defining the South and do more damage to our collective memory than good. There is more a reflection of misunderstanding than understanding in such activities.

I agree with everything that you and anonymous have to say on this issue of how to understand and interpret the South. Part of the problem is that the process of commemoration and heritage involves simplifying since an integral component in all of this is one’s emotional identification or response. Pride in x is best achieved by providing a relatively narrow narrative that triggers our empathy and sympathy. Of course, you are evidence that one can take pride in or identify with a past w/o sacrificing the tools of critical history. Unfortunately, folks like you are a rarity in the world of Confederate/Southern heritage. I agree with you that what is problematic is our remembrance of the war and not simply with the history itself. Critical history is process (it’s continually changing) while heritage is static.

Robert

I think the struggle in political circles in years before the Confederacy tell us something quite to the contrary. It’s clear that people identified with region before the war, but that didn’t equate to many of those same people embracing the Confederacy over Union. There were plenty of people who identified themselves as Southerners, but either did not partake in the idea of the Confederacy, who remained and survived as best they could as quiet Unionists in the South during the war, or went to the next highest level of disagreement and participated in activities to undermine the Confederacy and even joined the Union army. This went even deeper into the nuclear family. I can’t tell you how many families I have come across in which fathers disagreed with sons on the idea of supporting the Confederacy. The South was very much a divided entity within itself.

“It is secession which ends up defining, once and for all, what states are in the South and what states aren’t.”

I think a lot of people forget that secession was not carried by referendum throughout the South. Additionally, in the states that did have a referendum there was plenty of coercion in the vote. So I disagree. Furthermore, while many were swept away by the sensationalism of the idea of romance in war, once war was experienced, we realize the levels of conditionality in devotion to the concept of a Confederacy. There’s a lot more to it in the long run.

“So Robert, I’d agree that the history of the South is complex, but also problematic.”

That’s exactly what I didn’t say. I said it’s not the history that is problematic, but the legacy of memory that we have to dig through that is problematic.

“Maybe all of this just boils down to people who think that the definition of the South is solid, unproblematic, and clear versus those who recognize that the “South” is complex and demands exploration, investigation, and explanation.”

… and that is the crux of debate through most of what you see in this blog and mine.

Robert