A good friend of mine recently set up a Facebook page for her forthcoming book on the role of Christianity in shaping the concept of race in early Virginia. She asked friends on Facebook as well as her Twitter followers to go ahead and “like” the page and within a couple of days had reached 100 fans. Pretty good showing, but creating a Facebook page or Twitter account for a book is the easy part. The challenge is in turning those social media connections or virtual clicks of support into sales.
Now I am certainly no Chris Brogan, but over the past few years I have learned a little bit about turning likes and follower into sales. Of course, whether what I’ve learned actually pans out will be seen in the next few weeks. Here are a couple of suggestions.
I suspect that the Confederate flag story out of Lexington will go viral by the end of the day. No doubt, we will be treated to the standard mainstream media narrative of an unfinished Civil War as well as the overly defensive posture of the SCV. Already we’ve heard from Brandon Dorsey, who is the local SCV commander in Lexington:
As far as I am concerned, this is little different that some states shutting down all their public schools to avoid desegregation and then claiming their motivation for closing them is of no concern because they screwed over everyone.
Oh brother. Pass the hyperbole. The SCV and other heritage groups have staked everything on the display of the Confederate flag. It’s all or nothing. Any attempt at limiting its visibility is seen as an attack on their history and heritage as if they alone have a monopoly on the Southern past.
The days when the Confederate flag represented a people, a culture, and a history are over. Thankfully, we now live in a time when an ever wider spectrum of voices are able to make their voices heard and they are adamant that the flag ought not to be displayed on public property and/or supported with taxpayer dollars. Why? Because of its history and nothing the SCV or anyone else says or does can change the flag’s symbolic connection to a history of violence and racism. I suspect that most reasonable people would agree that there are settings in which its display is appropriate and even necessary, but that is a discussion the SCV will not consider.
This has nothing to do with hating the South or “evilizing” the Confederacy. That is as unimaginative an argument as one can make and as we have seen it will lead to the SCV’s continued marginalization in society. The SCV’s decision to stake everything on the flag reflects a simplistic understanding of the very history and heritage that they claim to defend. Instead of wasting limited resources on court cases, television ads, and airplane banners they should be thinking of creative ways to share the rich history of the Confederacy and their ancestors in their local communities.
When it comes to the Confederate flag the SCV is doomed to fail and they deserve everything they get.
This just in:
A legal battle to fly the Confederate flag from the street light poles of Lexington died today at the hand of a federal judge. In a written opinion, U.S. District Court Judge Samuel Wilson dismissed a lawsuit against the city filed by the Sons of Confederate Veterans. The lawsuit challenged an ordinance, passed last year amid public furor, that limited the types of flags that can be flown from city-owned light poles. Lexington City Council’s decision to fly only the city, state and national flags was “eminently reasonable,” Wilson wrote in a 10-page opinion released late today.
The Sons of Confederate Veterans had claimed that the city abused their free speech rights — banning the battle flag because of its controversial nature. But in granting the city’s motion to dismiss the lawsuit, Wilson wrote that the city’s alleged motivations do not override the fact that the ordinance is content-neutral on its face. By allowing only flags that represent government to be displayed on its light poles, the city essentially banned all private displays, including not just the Sons of Confederate Veterans but also two universities and several fraternities that have previously been allowed access to the poles. For that reason, the city argued, the ordinance did not shun a particular cause and thus was not subject to First Amendment attack. Wilson agreed, writing that to allow “a city-owned flag pole to serve as a public forum could suggest that government has placed its imprimatur on private expression.”
Today I completed a rough draft of an essay on John Christopher Winsmith and his servant Spencer for the NYTs Disunion column. Winsmith’s letters are incredibly rich and help to sketch a constantly evolving master – slave dynamic during the first sixteen months of the war. As a teaser consider the following reference to Spencer accompanying Winsmith on picket duty in northern Virginia in September 1861:
I took Spencer along to carry my knapsack [etc], and Ralph and I with him stopped at a house on the road, and drying ourselves thoroughly had a most delightful rest. Sunday just after daylight we left and joined to Regt. Then we proceeded to Upton’s Hill in sight of Munsin’s to do picket duty. The enemys lines are not so near the former as the latter place, and therefore our men got no shots at the Yankees. The view was fine, and just such as I have described in a former letter as having enjoyed from Munsin’s. Occasionally in the distance we could see the Yankees moving about, but no fight occurred during our stay.
This is the only time that Winsmith acknowledges this role in his letters, though I suspect it was quite common among officers at least during the early stages of the war. One wonders how many of these Yankee sightings of black men in Confederate ranks were of this nature.
Head on over to Andy Hall’s Dead Confederates site for an excellent post on the pensions that were handed out to former servants/slaves at the turn of the twentieth century. This is one of the most misunderstood aspects of this subject. It looks like the recent decision in Union County North Carolina to recognize former slaves as if they occupied a position akin to a soldier was premised on their having been granted pensions. Do yourself a favor and read Andy’s post.
Finally, today I got a call from Ken Wyatt, who is the director of Colored Confederates: Myth or Matter of Fact? I was interviewed as a talking head back in 2009. It’s been shown at a number of film festivals, but other than a preview I have yet to see it. Fortunately, it is being shown this weekend as part of the Roxbury International Film Festival here in Boston on Sunday at noon. I am looking forward to commentary by H.K. Edgerton that goes way off the deep end.
Here is the latest:
U.S. District Court Judge Samuel Wilson said he would likely rule on the city of Lexington’s request to dismiss a lawsuit brought by the Sons of Confederate Veterans Stonewall Brigade in “one to two weeks.” The Sons have maintained all along that a Lexington ordinance banning all flags from city flagpoles except the city’s, the commonwealth’s, and the U.S. flag, specifically targeted them. Lawyers for the Sons said the flagpoles were a “designated public forum,” therefore the Constitution protected the Sons, and most any others who requested to fly flags from city flagpoles. Attorneys for the city said the ordinance was “government speech,” essentially saying that since it was Lexington’s flagpoles, the city could choose which groups represent its brand and which ones didn’t. Sons of Confederate Veterans Stonewall Brigade leader, Brandon Dorsey, said: “I think in this case city council made it abundantly clear that the reason why they were trying to shut [the use of the flagpoles] off from us was because they didn’t like the flags and didn’t like [our] group.” Lexington city officials declined to comment after the hearing.
So, what are the implications for this case? If the judge decides against the city the Sons of Confederate Veterans will get to display the flag in downtown Lexington and if the judge decides in favor of the city the SCV gets to display the flag in downtown Lexington.
The book should be available in a matter of a few weeks, but you can now read the entire first chapter and snippets of the rest at Google Books. The first chapter focuses on the battle itself and pays specific attention to how Confederates assessed having to fight black soldiers. Other blogger/authors have expressed their frustration about these previews and I am certainly sympathetic. That said and apart from the legal issues involved I am not too concerned. In fact, I don’t think it will have much of an impact, if any, on sales. Times are tough for many people and if those interested can at least get a taste of what is in the book than I am happy. Ultimately, I wrote the book for it to be read and to stimulate discussion and hopefully lead to some understanding of this event.
I am pleased to see that the first chapter is previewed in its entirety. It covers material that has led to some pretty heated debates on this blog and has even reinforced the belief in a small number of people that my motivations for writing are based on a hatred of all things southern. Yes, how silly. The nice thing about a book is that you have to lay it all on the line. I did my best to interpret the battle based on the evidence collected and my thorough reading of relevant secondary sources. Ultimately all interpretations are incomplete and subject to correction.
As always, I welcome your feedback.
Oh…and if you would like to order the book now is your chance to purchase it at 40% off. Just click the image at the top right of the sidebar and use the code at checkout. Looking for an autographed copy? I am scheduled to appear at the Abraham Lincoln Book Shop’s Virtual Book Signing program on July 28.
Today I came across the art of Ben Sakoguchi. Much of his work fits into his Orange Crate Label series.
The 67-year-old Sakoguchi recalls seeing the labels on crates outside his parents’ small grocery store in San Bernardino. Years later, while scouring swap meets near his home, he discovered that the 10-by-11-inch images had become coveted collectibles. Sakoguchi experimented with the format and found that the pastoral elements of the labels made it easier to tackle controversial topics, including AIDS and 9/11. “When I paint with these labels,” he says, “it’s disarming, no matter the subject. People don’t want to be lectured about politics or race, so I use images and colors that soften the blow.”
Here are a few of my favorites.