Note: Here is a link to a short update on the Washington Post’s blog. I will keep an eye out for some video of the news conference. As of Wednesday morning I can’t find a single Online article from a Richmond newspaper or anything else for that matter. Did anyone even show up to this news conference?
There is something quite pathetic about the Sons of Confederate Veterans holding a press conference to denounce Virginia Governor Robert McDonnell and former Senator George Allen for what they perceive as violations of Confederate heritage. As many of you are aware this battle between the SCV and the governor started last spring over the latter’s handling of Confederate History Month. I am not going to rehash that debate in this post so I encourage you to go through my old posts if interested.
Their argument is nothing new: Civil War history has become overly politicized and taken hostage by liberal academics and other illegitimate groups that have prevented the SCV from acknowledging and commemorating their ancestors. These groups have successfully lobbied the governor to shun the SCV and their history as well as the roughly “2 million Virginia citizens [who] can trace their ancestry to a soldier who fought in the Confederate army” – the implication being that if you are descended from a Confederate soldier you automatically subscribe to the SCV’s preferred view. Such a view paints the SCV as the victims of a conspiracy or even as modern day warriors defending a lost cause. We are to believe that past celebrations of Confederate leaders and their cause from the late nineteenth century onward somehow fell outside of politics. Continue reading “Where Is Your Southern Honor?”→
The Washington Post’s popular A House Divided blog has welcomed Brag Bowling as its newest member. It will be interesting to see whether Bowling can move beyond advocacy and actually formulate an argument.
As I was perusing the site I noticed an announcement for the upcoming annual meeting of the Stephen D. Lee Institute, which happens to be the “educational arm” of the Sons of Confederate Veterans. What concerns me is that Linda Wheeler chose to characterize it as offering a “southern view of the Civil War.” Well, it’s doesn’t. Wheeler goes on to include what I must assume is the organization’s own rhetoric of “presenting the true history of the South.” Again, it doesn’t. It is a fundamental mistake to assume that the Institute speaks for anyone other than their members. To casually suggest that they speak for “the South” is inexcusable and irresponsible. If we’ve seen anything over the past few months is that there are a number of competing narratives of the Civil War in the South.
They surely don’t speak for fellow southern bloggers, Robert Moore and Andy Hall. They don’t speak for the many professional historians who were born and raised in the South and who now work hard researching and teaching the history of this beautiful region of the country. We can safely assume that they do not speak for the vast majority of African Americans in the South. It’s not even clear that the Institute speaks for the majority or even a substantial minority of the region. In fact, it’s insulting to suggest that just because you live in the South that you necessarily hold firm to a certain narrative of the past. It would be nice if we could move beyond this naive view of Civil War memory.
Finally, I find it just a little troubling that Wheeler chose to announce this event at all. Of all the forthcoming events in the next few weeks why would anyone publicize a conference that has almost nothing to do with history and everything to do with advocacy?
This really is the best possible time to host a blog on the Civil War and historical memory. If the next four years follows the past year we are in for a wild ride. At the same time there is something rather depressing about the level of discourse surrounding many of these high profile events. Consider the upcoming Secession Ball, scheduled for next Saturday in Charleston South Carolina. The event marks a specific event in the history of South Carolina and the nation. While organizers trot out the standard arguments distancing their event from the role that slavery played in helping to bring about the very event that is being celebrated the NAACP is working hard to distort and butcher their own version of the past.
“There is nothing to celebrate about killing a million people. South Carolina still lives under the rule of the Confederacy today,” Randolph said. He compared the Secession Ball to celebrating Sept. 11, Adolf Hitler, or the American Indian massacre at Wounded Knee. “We want some consistency. We want South Carolina — and America — to be consistent in the way it treats and honors all its citizens.” Randolph said the argument that secession was about states’ rights misrepresents the facts of slavery. “The state wanted to right to buy and sell people. Tell the whole truth,” he said. He spoke at a news conference at the Charleston branch of the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People, where he was surrounded by area leaders of the organization and ministers. Handouts at the meeting encouraged attendance at the march and mass meeting with the admonition: “A Call for Unity: Don’t Celebrate Slavery and Terrorism.”
Participants will watch segments of “Birth of a Nation,” a 1915 silent film that portrayed Ku Klux Klan members as heroes…. “The states wanted the right to sell human cargo,” he said [Randolph], adding the public would not tolerate similar disrespect of other minority groups – a Holocaust celebration or an event celebrating the atomic bombing of Hiroshima. “The reason this can take place so easily is we’re still suffering the effects of the Confederacy in this state,” Randolph said.
The NAACP is not going to win any converts by pushing a narrative of the war that is heavy on emotion and rhetoric and short on historical content.
Here is what I would do to protest this event. Station both black and white residents of Charleston in different sections of the city and at a scheduled time, during the Secession Ball, have them read the actual document that was approved by South Carolina’s secession convention. You could organize literally hundreds of people for this. I think it would be quite powerful to see South Carolinians take ownership of what South Carolinians in 1860. As Larry Wilmer noted the other night on the Jon Stewart Show, highlighting the role of slavery in this event is not “politically correct, it’s correct correct.” And that’s it.
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 “African Americans and Black Confederates”→
The History Channel will air pretty much anything related to history regardless of how nutty it is. However, it turns out that even the HC has standards, which apparently do not include the Georgia Division SCV’s series of videos on the Civil War. According to Stephen Clay McGehee (aka “Confederate Colonel”) “the History Channel received a complaint from a liberal blogger and Friday they reacted as liberals so often do – they have pulled the videos from their broadcast schedule.” Now, I just want to state for the record that I am not the “liberal blogger” who contacted the History Channel. Like I said, given the HC’s programming, I can’t think of a better place for these videos.