Here’s a nice little Lost Cause tune for ya’ all. I especially love the following lyric from the beginning of the song: “It’s not founded on old politics or race or slavery. Those who see no more than that care not for history.” For some reason poor old Braxton Bragg gets the back of the hand in this tune. Enjoy.
I don’t usually advertise new books like this, but I wanted to give all of you a heads up regarding Stephanie McCurry’s Confederate Reckoning: Power and Politics in the Civil War South, which is shaping up to be one of the most thought provoking books of the year. Over the past few years I’ve read a couple of chapters in edited collections and journals, but it is nice to be able to read this study of Confederate politics in its complete form. I am about half-way through it, but you will be hearing quite a bit about it in the near future. Here is the book description:
The story of the Confederate States of America, the proslavery, antidemocratic nation created by white Southern slaveholders to protect their property, has been told many times in heroic and martial narratives. Now, however, Stephanie McCurry tells a very different tale of the Confederate experience. When the grandiosity of Southerners’ national ambitions met the harsh realities of wartime crises, unintended consequences ensued. Although Southern statesmen and generals had built the most powerful slave regime in the Western world, they had excluded the majority of their own people—white women and slaves—and thereby sowed the seeds of their demise.
Note: It looks like I did a poor job of reading Eric’s post. For some reason I was under the impression that there were plans to build a new VC. That said, I have heard talk about the possibility of a new location so let’s proceed with that in mind.
The new group blog, Mysteries and Conundrums, authored by NPS historians at Fredericksburg has quickly become my favorite Civil War site. John Hennessy and the gang have done a fantastic job of sharing the challenges associated with interpreting and preserving some of our most important Civil War ground. I particularly enjoyed reading Hennessy’s last post in which he asks readers to consider a name change to the Stonewall Jackson Shrine. Many of the responses reflect deeply held views, but I commend Hennessy for his continued commitment to asking the tough questions.
Eric Mink’s latest post provides some interesting background information on the Chancellorsville Visitor Center; it looks like his next post will let us in on the decision-making process that went into the decision on the location of a new visitor center. [Update: Just as this was published Eric Mink posted his second installment.] I’ve brought students to Chancellorsville for the past 8 years and since I am pretty familiar with the battlefield I thought I would take a shot at suggesting a new location. The best place for a new visitor center would be on ground that covers the fighting that took place on May 3, 1863.
I’ve been bringing students to Chancellorsville for the past eight years and so I am fairly familiar with the ground and have thought quite a bit about how to approach a battlefield tour. We spend about 5-6 hours touring various sites, beginning at the present VC and proceeding to the Zoan Church, Chancellor House, and the final meeting spot between Lee and Jackson. From there we walk a bit of the original road that Jackson used for his flank march and discuss tactics and the difficulties associated with fighting in the Wilderness. We stop at the Flank March spot to discuss ethnicity and the Union 11th Corps along with the effects of Jackson’s attack. From there we drive back where I do a play-by-play of the events that led to Jackson’s wounding; it’s a narrative that closely follows Bob Krick’s brilliant analysis of this important moment in the battle. Finally, we make our way over the Fairview where we eat our lunch and discuss the events of May 3. While there we discuss Stephen Crane’s Red Badge of Courage, which helps us to get at issues related to soldier life.
As he promised in January Ed Sebesta has petitioned President Obama to discontinue the practice of sending a wreath to the Confederate statue at Arlington National Cemetery on Memorial Day. Actually, this petition goes much further than last year’s in requesting that the federal government “revoke the Sons of Confederate Veterans participation as a recognized charity in the Combined Federal Campaign, deny the SCV permission to host events for the United States Army, and prevent the SCV’s future involvement Junior Reserve Officer Training Corps (JROTC) programs in America’s high schools.” In doing so Sebesta has moved away from focusing the nation’s attention on a specific public site in favor of a broader look at the neo-Confederate movement. Unfortunately, any focus on the monument that Sebesta hoped to maintain is lost and I suspect that most people will not pay much attention to the SCV’s political activities and involvement in JROTC. Before commenting further, I want to share what I wrote last year:
- Should Barack Obama Place a Wreath at the Confederate Monument at Arlington?
- Obama Honors All Veterans
- A Step Too Far
- Edward Sebesta v. Barack Obama and the Battle for Civil War Memory
First, let me say that there is much in this new petition that I agree with. The SCV promotes a Lost Cause inspired narrative of the Civil War that at times borders on racist. You can indeed see this on the many chapter websites as well as their bookstore on the national site. As far as I am concerned the fundamental problem for Sebesta is that President Obama made the right decision last year. Rather than fuel the debate, which only worked to move interested parties further away from one another, the president sent an additional wreath to the African American Soldiers Monument in Washington, D.C.
I know that Professor Clyde Wilson is widely known for his involvement with a number of institutions associated with the neo-Confederate movement such as the League of the South, but this guy was trained as an undergraduate and graduate student in history at the University of North Carolina. He wrote his dissertation at UNC and went on to write a couple of pretty respectable books, including Carolina Cavalier: The Life and Mind of James Johnston Pettigrew. Wilson is best known academically for his work on editing the John Calhoun Papers. I guess what I am getting at is that behind what I can only describe as a commitment to expressing a conservative world view through these organizations there is a well-trained historian.
I have no problem with Wilson wanting to express his political views, but it is incredibly disturbing to see him sacrificing his integrity as a historian to do so? Consider the following quiz that has been attributed to Wilson at the Confederate Digest site. [Update: I didn't notice but the source is Lew Rockwell.]
- What American President launched a massive invasion of another country that posed no threat, and without a declaration of war?
- What President raised a huge army at his own will without the approval of Congress?
- What President started a war of choice in violation of every principle of Christian just war teaching?
- What President said that he had to violate the Constitution in order to save it?
- What President declared the elected legislatures of thirteen States to be “combinations” of criminals that he had to suppress?
- What President said he was indifferent to slavery but would use any force necessary to collect taxes?
- What President sent combat troops from the battlefield to bombard and occupy New York City?
- What President sent the Army to arrest in the middle of the night thousands of private citizens for expressing their opinions? And held them incommunicado in military prisons with total denial of due process of law? And had his soldiers destroy newspaper plants?
- What President was the first ruler in the civilized world to make medicine a contraband of war?
- What President signed for his cronies special licenses to purchase valuable cotton from an enemy country even though he had forbidden such trade and punished other people for the same practice?
- What President refused medical care and food to his own soldiers held by the enemy country?
- What President presided over the bombardment and house-by-house destruction of cities and towns that were undefended and not military targets?
- What President’s forces deliberately targeted women and children and destroyed their housing, food supply, and private belongings?
- What President’s occupying forces engaged in imprisonment, torture, and execution of civilians and seizing them as hostages?
- Under what President did the Army have the largest number of criminals, mercenaries, and foreigners?
- Who was the first American President to plot the assassination of an opposing head of state?
- Who had the least affiliation with Christianity of any American President and blamed God for starting the war over which he presided?
- What President voted for and praised a law which forbade black people from settling in his State?
- What President said that all black people should be expelled from the United States because they could never be full-fledged citizens?
- What President was the first to force citizens to accept as legal money pieces of paper unbacked by gold or silver?
- Who was the first President to institute an income tax?
- Who was the first President to pile up a national debt too vast to be paid off in a generation?
- Who is considered almost universally as the greatest American President, indeed as the greatest American of all times and as a world hero of democracy?
- What predecessor is President Obama most often compared to?
Of course, the answer to all of these questions is Abraham Lincoln. Again, I have no problem with Wilson wanting to express his political views. Honestly, I could care less about his broader world view. What I don’t believe is that these questions accurately reflect his understanding of Lincoln and the broader issues related to the Civil War. The questions are simply too childish and uninformed to be an honest reflection of Wilson’s understanding of the relevant history. In short, I don’t believe you, Clyde Wilson.