Charlotte’s Confederate Flag Problem

Popular media really does have a great deal of influence over how we frame our public discourse about Civil War memory.  We can see this most clearly in what I’ve dubbed the Continued War narrative, which assumes a nation divided along racial and/or regional lines.  Reporters love to utilize this narrative when discussing controversies over how we discuss the tough questions of race and slavery and especially the public display of the Confederate flag in the South.  This story out of Charlotte is a perfect example.

As everyone knows Charlotte will host the Democratic National Convention in September.  The city has a need to demonstrate to the rest of the country that it is not mired in the controversies of the past, but “remnants of the Old South linger in our region – and none as divisive as the Confederate flag.”  Really?  How do we know this?  Just ask a couple of guys who still fly the flag.

“Heritage,” Barrett said when I asked why he flies the Confederate battle flag.  “Heritage,” said Kevin Wooten in nearby Gaston County, who had a Confederate flag in his yard mounted in the back of a broken-down pickup truck. Up front, an American flag flew from out of the hood where the radio antenna used to go.  “It’s nothing about no hate against anyone,” said Wooten, 55, a mechanic by trade who enjoys wrestling and drag racing. “I have black friends I care about more than some of my white friends. But … .”  There’s often a “but” when you talk about the flag.  “I’ve lived here since I was a little rascal and my daddy always had an American flag and a Confederate flag, and I do, too,” Wooten said. “My great-grandfather fought in the Confederate Army down this way. I know a lot of people don’t like the flag, but I don’t see that as a problem.”

Of course, the reporter can’t let them get away with such a distorted view so she interviews a local history professor:

David Goldfield, a historian at UNC Charlotte, believes it’s fine to embrace your ancestors. But Goldfield, who wrote “Still Fighting the Civil War: The American South and Southern History,” suggests it’s time people brought the Confederate flag indoors.  “It offends a lot of people,” he said. “I tell them, ‘If I were in your position, I might have the Confederate battle flag in my house, but not necessarily fly it out in front of my house if it offended my neighbor.’ It’s just a matter of civility. It’s not a question of who’s right or who’s wrong.”  The fact that after 12 years the NAACP is still boycotting South Carolina because it flies the Confederate flag on the State House grounds is as clear an indication as any that the flag remains divisive. Hate groups use it as a symbol. Even back when the flag was first adopted, Goldfield said, it was closely allied to white supremacy.  “There’s no debate among historians today that slavery caused the Civil War,” Goldfield said, “and that the banner Confederate troops carried into battle was supporting a nation that predicated itself on the protection and extension of slavery.”

The reporter concludes by reassuring us that the views expressed by Barrett and Wooten are not her own and suggests to her fellow southerners that it is time “we put it [Confederate flag] away.”  What we never learn, however, is how prevalent the Confederate flag is in the Charlotte area.  Does it even merit this story?  One wonders how this reporter even found Barrett and Wooten.  I can imagine her asking a colleague or friend how she might go about finding a couple of guys in the area who still fly the flag. This is nothing more than a manufactured controversy.  Perhaps that’s a bit of a stretch, but you get the point.

The people of Charlotte can rest easy that the DNC is not going to be an opportunity for the rest of the nation to count Confederate flags.

The Other Michael Givens

Most of us know Michael Givens as the commander-in-chief of the Sons of Confederate Veterans.  Here he is in 2011 rallying the troops to take a more active and aggressive role in promoting Confederate heritage.

I suspect most of you are unfamiliar with Michael Givens the writer, movie director, cinematographer, and photographer.  Check this out.  Yes, that’s Michael Givens introducing rock star Scottie in his film Angel Camouflaged which tells the story of “a rock and roll singer whose struggle with substance abuse causes her music career to implode.”

You can check out the rest of his films or head on over to his impressive list of commercials for Iams dog food and even Trojan condoms as well as a video for 2LiveCrew and Ice-T.  He even dabbles in a little photography, some of which is pretty good.

Nowhere will you find a reference to his leadership in the SCV mentioned on his website.  Even his personal twitter feed is void of any SCV rumblings.  It appears that these two worlds are completely separated from one another.  I guess we shouldn’t be too surprised by this, but I have to wonder how many people in the SCV even know about his Hollywood moonlighting.

It’s just not what you expect of an SCV commander.  I have to say that I love the idea of Givens hangin’ with Hollywood elites and rap artists.  I don’t think I will ever look at the SCV the same.  This is a pretty hip organization.

Young Robert E. Lee’s Cherubs

I don’t normally share reader mail, but this struck me as worth posting.  It’s been a few years since I last visited Stratford Hall and while I had a pleasant visit I too was struck by the emphasis on the cherubs.

Today I visited Stratford Hall.  The Great House obviously demonstrates the Lee family’s tremendous wealth during the eighteenth-century, and, while I was generally impressed with the interpretation of the plantation, I was a bit disappointed that there is not a more significant effort to interpret the slave life enforced and endured at Stratford Hall.

The docent pointed out the cherubs in the nursery’s fireplace that young four-year-old Robert E. Lee said good-bye to when he and his family moved to Alexandria.  Apparently, as the story goes, young Robert recognized the gravity of his family’s move and that he would not see his cherubs anymore.

What struck me with this story is how it conveys his sense of childhood innocence, which of course we should expect from a small child. Sheltered from the world around him, he had become attached to these cherubs set into the fireplace’s iron backing.  He regarded them as something real, something deserving of a farewell, all the while his family enslaved dozens of African Americans and denied them the opportunity of any similar sense of childhood bliss.  Did young Robert ever hear the crack of a whip or the crying horror of a slave being sold away from his family?  We’ll never know perhaps.  But if he did, his family and possibly even black servant protectors shielded him from the oppression outside and away from the Great House and its more immediate and stately environs.

I have young children who have neither experienced nor have come to understand the ugliness that the world perpetuates and endures. For this, I am thankful beyond expression.  I often wonder what they will grow up to become, to believe and to defend as worthwhile. Young Robert grew up to defend a slaveocracy- an institution that represented everything opposed and contradictory to those cherubs in the fireplace.  Acknowledging our history, even its ugliness, helps to strive to do better for the next generation.

A Bad Day for David Barton, But a Good Day for History

Word came earlier today that David Barton’s publisher has pulled his most recent book on Thomas Jefferson.  Barton is best known as the evangelical Christian, who has built a career on uncovering or reclaiming the truth about America’s founding and Founding Fathers from the community of secular and liberal historians.  Barton claims to be a historian.  Over the past few years he has amassed a growing following who embrace his interpretation of the role of Christianity in the lives of individual Founders and in the establishment of this nation.  Barton enjoys support from a wide range of public figures and is now the official court historian for Glenn Beck.  So what happened?

First, it is important to note that Barton’s published works have been scrutinized from the beginning by professional historians, but to little avail.  What made the difference in recent days is the growing resistance from fellow conservative Christian historians and scholars, who are actually trained in the field.  It’s a growing list, but I would start here and for a critique of Barton’s book, Jefferson’s Lies, I recommend John Fea’s 4-part series.

On the one hand it is unfortunate that it took fellow conservative Christian historians to finally bring about the removal of this book from stores since their religious and political views have nothing to do with the strength of their arguments.  Their arguments stand or fall based on how they read the relevant evidence cited by Barton as well as the strength of his interpretation.  Barton is not being attacked because of his personal beliefs, but on his skill or lack thereof as a historian.  Anyone who spends enough time reading these rejoinders will conclude that there are serious flaws with Barton’s work.  In the end Barton claimed to be offering the general public a corrective to those evil secular/liberal historians without taking the essential step of engaging the relevant historiography.  While Barton may not understand this his publisher certainly does.

So, what does this have to do with the Civil War?  First, Barton and Beck recently tried their hand at doing some Civil War history and as you might imagine the results were pretty abysmal.  More on point, however, it is important to keep in mind that we have plenty of David Barton-types in our own community.  Check out any number of titles from Pelican Press, for example, and you will find the same flawed approach to doing history.  Authors rail against what they see as a liberal/secular bias among professional Civil War historians and other writers, but when it comes to actually engaging their arguments they are silent.  Either they are unfamiliar with their publications or they are simply incapable of engaging the arguments.

Let’s face it, the study of history has become so incredibly politicized that we’ve forgotten that the discipline involves the mastery of certain skills that can be learned in any number of places.  Without getting into another tired discussion of who is and who is not a historian, we can at least say that one’s claim to the title stands or falls on the quality of the work produced.  What we now can say with confidence is that Barton is no historian.

Today was a good day for the discipline of history.