As it relates to the supply-side of the equation, I think there is little doubt that there is something to your and Pete’s declaration of victory. But on the consumer side–not entirely. Anyone would be hard-pressed to declare to the front-line staff on an NPS battlefield site that the issue of disputed memory/history/heritage/tradition is settled in the public’s mind. There HAS been great progress, and we see evidence of that on a regular basis, but we also see evidence of discord literally every day. And then, too, there is the issue the entrenched disconnect between the public history of the Civil War and the African-American community. As has often been said, history doesn’t turn the page, only historians do. [my emphasis]
I think John is absolutely right and this is an issue that came up a few times during the conference in Raleigh, but it didn’t receive nearly enough attention. My paper attempted to sketch some of the challenges that the National Park Service in Petersburg face in attracting African Americans and the local community to the battlefield. I am in now way suggesting that NPS historians need to spend their time generating plans on how to go about attracting any one group of Americans. I’m not even sure how one would go about this. At the same time and given their location within a predominantly black community I do believe that the NPS does have a responsibility to be sensitive to the extent to which decisions made within its own institution and beyond served to alienate African Americans from a landscape that figured prominently in a narrative that traced the transition from slavery to freedom.
It is clear to me that public historians need to spend much more time coming to terms with the myriad ways in which Americans approach their past. With all of the attention being paid to how little Americans supposedly know about the past, it would be much more helpful to try to better understand why so many of us feel drawn to the past. [One useful source is Roy Rozensweig’s and Thelen’s, The Presence of the Past.] A new YouTube video interview of H.K. Edgerton by the Sons of Confederate Veterans points to just how important this is if we hope to offer an interpretation of the past that responds to the needs of various consumers of history. I’ve written extensively about H.K. and while I find him to be quite entertaining it would be a big mistake to dismiss him without considering his core message. I find it very difficult to follow much of his thinking about slavery, Reconstruction, the Klan, and Nathan Bedford Forrest in this video. Frankly, I don’t get the sense that H.K. has read much history at all.
I trust that after this post no one will accuse me of dismissing any and all evidence for the existence of black Confederate soldiers. Better yet, I give you at least one black Confederate general. The interesting question is whether the Sons of Confederate Veterans and others will accept him as one of their own. From The Boston Globe:
Randall Lee Gibson, an urbane, Yale-educated Confederate general, mocked black people as “the most degraded of all races of men.’’ Later, as a US senator from Louisiana, he helped broker the end of Reconstruction, freeing the South to harass and lynch blacks virtually at will…. In the 20th century, his orphaned son, Preston, was raised by an aunt and her husband, who had been a justice on the US Supreme Court that legitimated racial segregation in the infamous case of Plessy v. Ferguson…. What Senator Gibson did not know was that his great-grandfather Gideon Gibson was a free man of color, and a substantial landowner and slaveholder, who led the “Regulators’’ to a successful back-country revolt in Colonial South Carolina. To his peers, the author contends, Gideon Gibson was neither black nor white but merely rich and respected. His marriage to a white woman further blanched his progeny, and their relocation to Mississippi and Louisiana allowed the family’s African-American past to fade away altogether.
The following passage comes from a review of a new book that explores the complex web of racial identity through the experiences of three families that straddled the the racial divide. Gibson’s life is also the focus of a recent biography by Mary Gorton McBride, titled, Randall Lee Gibson of Louisiana: Confederate General and New South Reformer (Louisiana State University Press, 2007). In 1876 Gibson was attacked by former Republican governor James Madison Wells, who accused him of being “colored” in the pages of the New York Times. Gibson followed up by consulting with two historians in Mississippi concerning his family history. Apparently neither Gibson nor his siblings had any knowledge of their black ancestors, but what is more interesting is that the accusations apparently had no impact on how he viewed himself or on society’s acceptance of Gibson as a “white” leader.
So, was/is General Randall Lee Gibson a black Confederate?
This is an interesting story out of Louisiana. The caption under the image reads: “Walter Milburn III, left, lights a candle Tuesday morning at the foot of the Confederate War Veterans Memorial in protest of the displaying of the Confederate Flag. Assisting with the lighting of the candle is George Gremillion, Sons of the Confederate Veterans Brigadier General J.J. Alfred Mouton Camp 778 commander.” Unfortunately, no one interviewed Gremillion, which, it seems to me, is the much more interesting part of this story.
Yesterday’s post on the sparsely attended Jefferson Davis reenactment in Montgomery, Alabama generated a great deal of interest and comments. The Sons of Confederate Veterans, which hosted the event, has crafted a narrative that imagines itself as uniquely qualified to set the terms of how Confederate soldiers and the war as a whole ought to be remembered and commemorated. They fashion themselves as engaged in a gallant defense of a history that is supposedly under assault by various individuals and organizations. The zeal for their cause is wrapped up in the assumption that their lineage is both a necessary and sufficient condition for their preferred view; this functions to create a battle of us v. them. The war being waged is against vague notions of political correctness, “carpetbaggers” the liberal media, and, of course, academics engaged in revisionist history.
The strategy works well enough to define the ideological boundaries of the organization; however, it also reveals its limitations as well. The SCV doesn’t simply bring together descendants of Confederate soldiers, it brings them together around a set of shared beliefs that have little do with remembering individual soldiers. I say this as an outsider, but I can’t help but notice how little time is actually devoted to remembering the Confederate soldier as a dynamic historical agent. Instead we are bombarded with Confederate history month proclamations and Nathan Bedford Forrest vanity tags. Where is the common soldier? When was the last time the intellectual arm of the SCV organized a conference around the history of Confederate soldiers as opposed to trying to justify secession and highlight the evil intent of Abraham Lincoln? Even more disturbing is the impression that membership implies a certain belief about the legitimacy of the Confederate experiment, whether it has to do with secession and/or treason. Finally, yesterday’s ceremony reinforced the impression that the organization is concerned as much with contemporary politics as it is with heritage/history.
I can’t help but wonder how many proud descendants of Confederate soldiers are being left out as a result. Where do Robert Moore, Will Stoutamire, and Andy Hall fit in? If the mission of the SCV is to honor and commemorate the Confederate soldier, why does it choose to take stances on issues that detract from this mission? Here is what I believe:
You can honor your Confederate ancestor and not believe that secession was constitutional.
You can honor your Confederate ancestor and not believe in states rights.
You can honor your Confederate ancestor and believe that Lincoln was one of this nation’s greatest presidents.
You can honor your Confederate ancestor without believing that Lee and Jackson are worthy of adulation.
You can honor your Confederate ancestor and be thankful that the Confederacy lost the Civil War.
You can honor your Confederate ancestor and be a member of the Democratic Party.
You can honor your Confederate ancestor and read books published by university presses.
Continue with the list as you wish. My point is that none of that really matters in the end. What matters is the individual’s identification with an ancestor that he/she may or may not know much of anything about. The goal of the organization ought to be to help one another to better understand what this generation experienced. I suspect that Andy, Robert, and Will represent a large constituency of folks, who would embrace such an organization. So, why does the SCV only represent some Confederate descendants?
Even in the “Heart of Dixie” the Sons of Confederate Veterans can muster little more than a few hundred people from its ranks to commemorate the inauguration of Jefferson Davis. Based on the YouTube clip below yesterday’s event sounded more like a political rally than a reenactment. The speaker’s comparison of the SCV’s challenges with Harry Potter and Rosa Parks reflects an intellectual bankruptcy that is bound to continue to marginalize the organization throughout the sesquicentennial.
The news coverage of the event thus far has been minimal and anything but flattering. [Consider the Associated Press’s coverage.] Just about every article that I’ve read takes note of the Civil Rights history of Montgomery, the decision on the part of local and state officials not to participate, and the lack of interest among local business and civic leaders. This stands in sharp contrast with the centennial commemoration of Davis’s inauguration.
There is something truly perverse about the SCV appropriating Rosa Parks and the memory of African Americans being forced to sit in the back of the bus. African Americans were forced into the position of second class citizens by law and not of their own choosing. At no time has the SCV operated under these conditions. They have been free to make their case in the court of public opinion and in recent years they have failed miserably. A partial list of recent SCV debacles include:
The most recent circus is centered on a proposal to offer a series of vanity license plates in Mississippi, one of which will feature Nathan Bedford Forrest. Even the editorial board of the Sun Herald in Biloxi, Mississippi thinks this is a bad idea. “What is appropriate is a proposal in the Legislature to designate a Civil Rights Memorial Day as a counterbalance to the state’s Confederate Memorial Day. This would be in keeping with earlier legislation that combined observances of Robert E. Lee’s birthday with Dr. Martin Luther King Jr.’s.” Did they really have to propose Forrest? Consider Robert Moore’s recent suggestion, which would have had my support and I suspect many others as well.
It goes without saying that bad history and a memory of the war that few people embrace is not a recipe for success. Our next stop on the sesquicentennial tour will be Fort Sumter in April. The SCV will be lucky if they arrive on the back of the bus. At this point I am imagining something more along the lines of a Go-Kart.