Category Archives: Memory

I Don’t Like This Word

The University of Mississippi Press was kind enough to send along a review copy of James Loewen’s and Ed Sebesta’s new book, The Confederate and Neo-Confederate Reader: The “Great Truth” about the “Lost Cause”.  It looks like an interesting collection of primary sources related to our collective memory of the cause of secession and the importance of slavery to the Civil War.  I look forward to delving into it more deeply in the coming weeks.  No doubt, I will take advantage of a few of these documents next trimester in my course on the Civil War and historical memory.

What I find troubling, however, is the title of this book.  I’ve learned quite a bit about the evolution and contours of our collective memory in the course of my reading and blogging.  One thing that struck me early won as the futility of lumping people together around vague labels.  Such an attempt is almost always ahistorical, but more importantly, it tends to function as a non-starter.  In other words, it tends to embolden certain folks and reinforce feelings of fear and suspicion.  If you peruse the first year of this blog’s archives you will notice that I casually employed the label ‘Neo-Confederate.’  In more recent years I’ve become much more careful with my choice of words and only on rare occasions will I reference Neo-Confederates.

Much of this ongoing dialog about Civil War memory has little to do with historical scholarship; rather, for many folks it is about “heritage,” “a sense of place,” and an emotional hold on certain narratives.  We can probably attribute the cover and title to the publisher, whose primary goal is to grab the attention of potential readers and sell books.  I just have to wonder whether such a combination will turn off readers even before cracking the cover.

My “Sense of Place”

Richard Williams has a post up in which he takes me to task for supposedly dismissing a question asked of me during a recent roundtable discussion that I served on as part of Brunswick County’s Civil War Sesquicentennial.  The question was posed to me by a representative of the SCV, who was curious as to my place of birth.  Apparently, Richard is not satisfied with my response and goes on to suggest that my failure to appreciate the question reflects my own lack of a “sense of past”:

Thirdly, I’m not quite sure what Kevin has to gain by insulting someone for asking an honest and reasonable question – someone who took time out of their schedule to come hear Kevin participate in a public forum. That won’t go very far to encourage attendance and sincere questions at these types of events in the future, that’s for sure.   Since Kevin has mentioned this issue before, I get the distinct impression he’s uncomfortable with the topic, perhaps revealing his own feelings (justified or not) of inadequacy due to his not being “Virginian, born and bred.” (See, I can pyscho-analyze too.)

The idea that I insulted anyone during this conference is ludicrous.  In fact, I answered the man’s question directly, but he failed to follow-up and chose to move on to whether I teach my students that Lee, Jackson, and Stuart are great men.  It was clear to my co-panelists as well as others in the audience that the question was not meant to engage me in a serious discussion, but was meant to dismiss me out of hand.  Perhaps Richard should inquire as to why he failed to ask a further question.

In the comments section Richard and another reader once again accuse me of lacking a “sense of place.”

Mr. Williams, what a well written post. It is true, as Mr. Levin said, that a “sense of place” can function as a liability but it is amusing that he does not wish to consider that those words could apply to himself.

Thank you and you are so right. Kevin’s “sense of place” – the North – is a liability when it comes to his biases against Confederate heritage and history.

Both assume quite a bit about me in concluding that I lack a “sense of place” or that my background clouds my understanding of Confederate history.  Nothing could be further from the truth.  The study of history has taken me all over this beautiful state.  It’s introduced me to a wide range of Virginians and my many visits to state archival repositories has given me an intimate understanding of its rich past.  I feel more connected to Virginia than all the other places I’ve lived including the place where I was raised.  I’ve contributed to its written history more than once and have even been recognized for it by the Virginia Historical Society.

What exactly does it mean to be “biased against Confederate heritage/history”?  Would they say the same thing about Robert Moore and Andy Hall, both of who blog about the Civil War and the Confederacy specifically and are native to the South?  Is there really only one legitimate interpretation of the South?  How do their comments reflect on the fact that scores of people who are native to Virginia and the rest of the South read and enjoy this blog as well as my published work?  Is there something wrong with these folks?  If I were somehow to write about the history of the Confederacy in the way that proved satisfactory to Richard and others would my place of birth be set aside?  Finally, does my place of birth cloud my understanding of any other period in Virginia’s history.  Can I write or blog about any other aspect of this rich story without having to worry about it or is it just Lee, Jackson, and Stuart that concern them?  I could go on, but what’s the point.

Regardless of whether they acknowledge it or not, it’s my strong sense of place and love for this state’s rich history that keeps me connected to it and works to more firmly ground me in the present.  In the end, Richard has done little more than follow in the footsteps of the individual he accuses me of insulting.

The Real Black Civil War Soldiers

With all of this talk about black Confederates it is easy to lose sight of the fact that African American soldiers did indeed exist.  Next weekend Harrisburg, Pennsylvania will commemorate the Grand Review of United States Colored Troops that took place in November 1865.  Information for the event can be found here.   An event focused specifically on black Civil War soldiers reflects just how far our collective memory of the war has come.  One would be hard pressed to find anything of this scale in the 1960s during the Civil War Centennial.  That said, we should resist the urge to celebrate ourselves too much.  I suspect that most people who attend this event will do so with images of Matthew Broderick, Denzel Washington, and Morgan Freeman in the back of their minds.  The movie, Glory is an important milestone in our popular understanding of the war and while it introduced Americans to a long neglected aspect of this history it may have pushed even further away the real significance of the sacrifice of these men.  To address it would have run the risk of raising the specter of white guilt.

In reference to Glory what stands out to me is the emphasis on a progressive story where the individual characters as well as the unit itself becomes more closely connected or identified with the national goal of emancipation and nationalism.  Col. Shaw (played by Broderick) volunteers his regiment in the attack on Battery Wagner as a means of impressing upon the nation the sacrifices and bravery displayed by his men.  Tripp (played by Washington) begins the movie with an overtly selfish perspective, gradually comes to see the regiment as family, and finally falls in battle while holding the stars and stripes.  Even Thomas, who represents the free black men of the regiment and comes to learn during training that he has more in common with fugitive slaves, finds redemption and self-respect by volunteering to carry the flag before the assault on Wagner.

The decision to end the movie with the failed assault at Wagner solidifies this progressive theme, which links the men to one another and, supposedly, the goal of the United States by the middle of the war.  The final scenes depict the grim reality of the battlefield, including shoe-less dead black soldiers, and a mass grave in which both Shaw and his men are buried.  As the movie ends the viewer is told that the performance of the 54th Massachusetts led to the recruitment of upwards of 180,000 men and that President Lincoln credited these men with turning the tide of war.  The upshot is that the viewer finishes the movie with the impression that the story of the 54th has been brought to its completion, in large part, because of the death of Shaw.  It’s as if the mission of the unit, in terms of its contribution to the Civil War and American History, has been fully realized.  It is through defeat and death in the regiment that the nation experiences a new birth of freedom. Continue reading

African Americans and Black Confederates

I noticed that Ann DeWitt has taken the time to respond to one of my recent posts about Entangled in Freedom [and here].  I will leave it to you to decipher her post.  In addition, yesterday Hampton historian, Veronica Davis filed a lawsuit to halt the deletion of the controversial passage about black Confederates in the Virginia 4th grade history textbook.  [Update: Brooks Simpson has included a link to Davis's petition at Civil Warriors.]  High profile African Americans, who have come to endorse this historical meme and for different reasons include H.K. Edgerton, Nelson Winbush and even Earl Ijames.  One of my readers is convinced that Edgerton and other African Americans are being paid to promote this narrative.  I couldn’t disagree more.  In fact, I would suggest that such an explanation ignores an important aspect of this cultural phenomenon and our collective memory of the Civil War.

I’ve been thinking a great deal about what the identification of some African Americans tells us about the evolution of Civil War Memory and while I don’t have any firm answers it might be worth posting for further discussion.  Perhaps the identification with this narrative by some African Americans can be seen as evidence that black Americans have a deep need to connect with a Southern past.  That should come as no surprise given the central role that they have played in its formation from the very beginning.  At the same time that role has been decidedly influenced at different points in history by white Americans to buttress their own racial, cultural, and political agenda.  One need look no further than the pervasiveness of an ideology of paternalism (in the context of slavery) during the antebellum period, the advent of the Lost Cause following the Civil War, and more recently a conscious effort to support white political control in the 1950s and 60s through the control of history textbooks.

For many African Americans it is the Civil Rights Movement that looms large as a place to find heroic stories, larger-than-life personalities, and even narratives of racial reconciliation.  The Civil War, on the other hand, has been lost.  As I’ve learned over the years many African American families pushed their history of slavery away either because it was too painful or the narrative had been reduced to one of degradation and misery.  The past few decades has witnessed a dramatic shift in the way that slavery is interpreted as well as the reemergence of African American participation in the war itself – seen most clearly in the 1989 release of “Glory.”  The movie’s success in its appeal to a mainstream white audience ought to be seen as an important milestone in the evolution of popular memory of the war that has come to acknowledge the central role of slavery and emancipation in the overall conflict. Continue reading

Just in Time For the Sesquicentennial of the “War For Southern Independence”

The Georgia Division Sons of Confederate Veterans is gearing up for the sesquicentennial with a series of commercials that will air on the History Channel in December. These videos will fit perfectly in between Ice Road Truckers, American Pickers, Pawn Stars and various documentaries about UFOs and Hitler’s Bunker. The first video offers an outline of what the war was about:

  • Men and women of the South courageously stood for liberty in the face of insurmountable odds.  Is this meant for black and white southerners?
  • The South peacefully seceded just like the Founding Fathers did in 1776.
  • All the South wanted was to be left alone to govern itself.
  • Lincoln fought to maintain taxes and tariffs.
  • Men like Jackson, Forrest, and Lee fought valiantly and were often outnumbered 5 to 1.  You would think that the Georgia Division would reference military leaders from their home state.

Additional videos include:

As I was going through the videos I realized that this series will make for a very interesting assignment in my Civil War Memory course, which I am teaching next trimester.  I am going to split up the class into groups of two and assign a video to each group.  Their assignment will be to critique the video by consulting relevant recent scholarship on their respective topics.  Students will be responsible for surveying both the strengths and weakness of these videos.  For instance, one of the videos on slavery goes into restrictions on free blacks in states like Indiana as well as offering a few points about the place of slavery in the North and involvement in the international slave trade.   At the same time the video almost completely ignores the place of slavery in the South.  The video on South Carolina’s secession makes no mention of its own Ordinance of Secession.  They can write up an analysis and present it to the rest of the class or make a video response and upload it to YouTube.  Thanks Georgia SCV.