Civil War Memory

Stonewall Jackson Continues to Educate in Alabama

How many of you have ever heard of the Stonewall Jackson Memorial Fund of Alabama?  The 3-member panel created by Alabama lawmakers in 1955 and headed by state archives officials offers $1,000 scholarships to college-bound students for essays on the Confederate general.  Apparently they have awarded 53 interest-free scholarships since 1989.  What kind of essay are we talking about here?

There is hereby created and established the Alabama Stonewall Jackson Memorial Fund, which fund is to be composed of the money hereinafter appropriated in this chapter, together with any accruals from the income from the fund or repayments thereto.  The purpose of this fund is to memorialize that great American and Confederate general, "Stonewall" Jackson, through a program of education initiated by Stonewall Jackson Memorial, Incorporated, including both essay contests and scholarships. The benefits of this fund shall accrue only to Alabamians.

Mississippi also enacted a similar program before it was "abolished" in 1990:

(1) There is hereby created the Mississippi Stonewall Jackson Memorial Board, which shall have as its purpose the memorializing of that great American and Confederate General, Stonewall Jackson, through a program of education initiated by Stonewall Jackson Memorial, Inc. The Mississippi Stonewall Jackson Memorial Board shall be governed by a board of trustees, who shall serve without compensation. The board of trustees shall be composed of three (3) members, the Mississippi State Superintendent of Public Education, the Director of the Mississippi Department of Archives and History, and the President of Stonewall Jackson Memorial, Inc. The board of trustees shall be vested with the power to administer this section in its entirety and to establish the Mississippi Stonewall Jackson Memorial Fund.
(2) From and after March 13, 1990, the Stonewall Jackson Memorial Board shall be abolished by operation of law, and any monies appropriated or donated to or deposited in the Stonewall Jackson Memorial Fund shall be received, invested and administered by the Board of Trustees of the Mississippi Department of Archives and History as it deems advisable in line with sound business procedure. The Board of Trustees of the Mississippi Department of Archives and History may spend the interest derived from the Mississippi Stonewall Jackson Memorial Fund to support the programs and activities of the Junior Historical Society of Mississippi and thereby promote the study of Mississippi history. No part of the principal of such fund shall be disbursed for any purpose, and all grants to the Junior Historical Society shall be taken from the interest derived from investments only.

It's pretty clear as to the types of articles that must be written to qualify for a Jackson loan.  There seems to be little room for any kind of critical analysis of some aspect of Jackson's life.  I would love to know how many black students have chosen to submit essays on this topic.  So, why is this in the news?  Well, you guessed it, some lawmakers in Alabama want to end the program.  The arguments both for ending and continuing the program are pretty straightforward and follow the arguments related to just about every controversy related to our public memory of the Civil War. 

What I find interesting, and which is not referenced at all, is the fact that Alabama's program was started in 1955.  The landmark Supreme Court case of Brown v. Board of Education had been decided just months earlier.  To what extent was this carried out in response to a perceived threat to a central pillar of southern life by the federal government? 

There would be no issue if this were a private endowment, but this program is state funded and lawmakers have the right and responsibility to challenge appropriations.  As for my own view of this issue it seems to be much to do about nothing.  I lived and taught in Alabama for two years so I am well aware of the state of public education there.  If it takes a goofy 1,500-word essay to earn a $1,000 scholarship for college than so be it.  Black students can write about what Jackson teaches us about being a friendly slaveowner.

Robert E. Lee: "The Pride of the South"

[Hat-Tip to Mark Benbow, who passed along this article from the Sept-Oct, 1996 issue of the American Breweriana]

A few weeks back I shared an image of Robert E. Lee which was used by the J.W. Kelley Company of Chattanooga, Tennessee to market its Deep Spring Whiskey.  The whiskey was sold between 1903 and 1915.  Lee's image, as well as other high-ranking former Confederates, were used to sell a wide range of products throughout the postwar period.   Immediately following the repeal of prohibition the Seitz Brewing Company of Easton, Pennyslvania began marketing Dixie Beer which featured Lee astride Traveler.  Out of concern that few people in Pennsylvania would be interested in drinking such a  beer the company decided to market their product through a distributing company in North Carolina called  Southern Breweries, Inc.

Shortly thereafter a letter was sent to Seitz from the Virginia Division, United Daughters of the Confederacy expressing disapproval over the use of the Lee's image:  "His name is too sacred for us to allow this without hearty disapproval.  Because he is enshrined in our hearts as the 'Pride of the South' The Division requests that his label be withdrawn."  They chose to comply.  It's unfortunate that more information is not available from the article, but it does reveal the extent to which the U.D.C. went to control public consumption of Lost Cause icons.  It is impossible to know whether the U.D.C. was concerned that Lee was being used to sell alcohol or that it was being done by a northern company.  After all they apparently had no issue with a southern company using Lee's name and image to sell whiskey.  It's an interesting story given our tendency to focus on the steps the U.D.C. took to control the content of school primers and other publications about the Civil War and the "Old South." 

Why Did R.E. Lee Have to Be Born So Far Out of the Way?

As I mentioned earlier, Michaela and I stopped off at Stratford Hall for a quick tour of the plantation on our way home from vacation.  We arrived at 3pm which gave us little time to stroll around the grounds before the start of the final tour of the day at 4pm.  We were only able to spend a few minutes in the museum but I noticed a wide range of exhibits that covered both the Lee family and the history of the estate following its sale in the 1820s and through the establishment of the R.E. Lee Memorial Foundation and later the R.E. Lee Memorial Association.  The grounds are quite beautiful and on a clear day you can see the Potomac River from the house.  The tour itself, however, was a bit of a disappointment.  Visitors are taken through the various rooms and vivid descriptions of various objects are shared as well as short overview of the more prominent members of the Lee family, but there is a minimum amount of information shared concerning life at the plantation.   While our guide did a competent job there was very little analysis to give visitors a deeper understanding of how plantations functioned on the Northern Neck.  At one point she commented that the building of the house was a team effort between the Lee's and their slaves.  I'm not sure this is the most accurate way of describing the relationship between slaves and the family that owned them. I should point out that there is an ongoing effort to piece together a more complete story of Stratford Hall which is somewhat hampered by a lack of documentary evidence.

That said, I liked the fact that the tour did not focus on R.E. Lee alone; after all, Stratford Hall served as his home only for a brief period of time.  This makes for an interesting challenge.  On the one hand most people, including yours truly, travel to the plantation because of R.E. Lee, yet the property has little to do with him.  On a somewhat related note, I noticed in the gift shop that while you could purchase an America flag there were no Confederate flags for sale other than a few items such as the hat that I am pictured wearing.  My wife suggested that it would have been inappropriate to sell such an item given that the house has nothing to do with Confederate history.  What do you think?

Interestingly, at one point our guide commented on the changing face of the Stratford Hall staff.  She jokingly said that a few years ago the directors all had white hair, while in recent years they are much younger.  I had to laugh when I heard this as I just met the new Executive Director, Paul C. Reber, at the recent meeting of the Society for Civil War Historians.  Paul discussed the challenges of doing public history in the 21st century.  Later that day I had a chance to talk with Paul and it is clear to me that a number of changes concerning interpretation at Stratford Hall are forthcoming.  Paul has some very interesting ideas about exhibits and interpretation.  One of the more interesting opportunities for interpretation at Stratford concerns the infamous cradle, which until recently was thought to be the R.E. Lee's.  The object was reason enough for many to visit Stratford Hall given its supposed iconic value.  When it was discovered that the cradle could not possibly be Lee's the family that loaned it to Stratford requested to have it returned.  Paul suggested that it would be interesting to do an exhibit on the history of the object throughout its different phases from sacred to ordinary object.  I agree.

What I find most interesting about the history of the site is the story surrounding Mary Field Lanier who helped create the R.E. Lee Memorial Association in 1929.  The organization assumed ownership of the property to turn it into an "ENDURING TESTIMONIAL TO THE STAINLESS LIFE AND GLORIOUS SERVICES OF OUR DEPARTED GENERAL." Lanier was the President of the William Alexander, Jr. Chapter of the United Daughters of the Confederacy in Greenwich, Connecticut, which I also find interesting.  There is a library at Stratford Hall and I've already inquired into the possibility of doing some research on the subject, perhaps for next summer. 

Of course, Stratford Hall is a bit out of the way, but if you happen to be on the Northern Neck of Virginia do yourself a favor and visit this beautiful site.

An Excerpt From Virginia: History, Government, Geography

Yesterday I shared an illustration from a popular history book used here in Virginia titled, Virginia: History, Government, Geography by Francis B. Simkins, Spotswood H. Jones, and Sidman P. Poole.  The illustration speaks for itself, but today I found some text on slavery and race relations from the book, which serves to remind us of just how important it is that our history textbooks be based on first-rate scholarship and not fantasy.

A feeling of strong affection existed between masters and slaves in a majority of Virginia homes. . . The house servants became almost as much a part of the planter’s family circle as its white members. . . The Negroes were always present at family weddings. They were allowed to look on at dances and other entertainments . . . A strong tie existed between slave and master because each was dependent on the other. . . The slave system demanded that the master care for the slave in childhood, in sickness, and in old age. The regard that master and slaves had for each other made plantation life happy and prosperous.  Life among the Negroes of Virginia in slavery times was generally happy. The Negroes went about in a cheerful manner making a living for themselves and for those for whom they worked. . . But they were not worried by the furious arguments going on between Northerners and Southerners over what should be done with them. In fact, they paid little attention to these arguments.

One of my readers commented on the previous post that he was assigned this book in 1980.  Now that is incredibly disturbing.

I Sense a Pattern Here

This is a perfect follow-up to my earlier post on Rickey Pittman's childrens book about Jim Limber. I've suggested numerous times that the proposed statue commemorating Jefferson Davis and Jim Limber fits into a broader push on the part of the Sons of Confederate Veterans and other heritage groups to minimize the place of slavery within the antebellum South as well as the history of the Confederacy specifically.  Of course, the view that slaveholding was benign and best understood as paternalistic has a long and disturbing history in this country. 

This morning a friend emailed an image taken from a textbook titled Virginia: History, Government, Geography (Scribners, 1966) and written by Francis Butler Simkins.  Simkins was a well-known Southern Historian who taught at Longwood College and who authored a well-received biography of Ben Tillman, which was published in 1944 by the University of South Carolina Press.  The individual who emailed the image noted that Simkins's narrative betrays a strong pro-slavery bias, but speculates that, given his scholarship, revisions were made by the Virginia Textbook Commission and that Simkins allowed his name to continue to be used for the publication.  As for the image used for the chapter on slavery, I don't think I need to explain what is problematic about it.  There is a rich history behind the Davis-Limber statue and it fits neatly into our broader assumptions concerning race relations in the South and throughout the United States at different times.  In the same way that the illustration misrepresents the realities of slaveholding, can't we also suggest that a statue depicting Davis holding hands with Limber misrepresents how blacks lived under the various Davis rooftops? 

We must be very critical when it comes to the messages that our public spaces convey about our history.  We no longer live at a time when one racial group has a monopoly on the shape of public spaces as a way to maintain control of both history and government.  Let's take advantage of that fact.

Jim Limber for Kids

There is nothing more disturbing for an educator than to come across children's books whose authors have little qualification as historians or who have an implicit agenda to get across. Such is the case with Rickey Pittman's book, Jim Limber Davis: A Black Orphan in the Confederate White House.  Here is the jacket description:

The true story of the adopted black child of Jefferson Davis. Jim Limber Davis was rescued from an abusive guardian by Varina Davis when he was only five years old. Jefferson and Varina Davis welcomed him into their home, the Confederate White House, as one of the family, and Jim lived with them until the fall of the Confederacy. When Union soldiers invaded Richmond, Virginia, they captured Jefferson Davis. Later, they kidnapped Jim Limber in Georgia and spread cruel rumors that he was Jefferson Davis's slave. This true story provides a glimpse of how Jim was accepted as one of the Davis's children and reveals their family's love and compassion for him.

As John Coski noted in his short essay there is a great deal that we do not know about this story.  Pittman seems comfortable giving Limber the Davis name, though there are no records to demonstrate that Limber was officially adopted.  With any other publisher I would be disappointed, but in this case we are dealing with Pelican, which is one of the most unreliable and agenda-driven publishers out there.  The author's personal website can be found here.  He is an active member of the Sons of Confederate Veterans, Camp Thomas McGuire in West Monroe, Louisiana.

Pittman also provides an online study guide to accompany this book.  Students can play games that Limber would have played or inquire into his whereabouts as did Jefferson Davis after the war.  Students can draw a picture of the Confederate White House where Limber lived, though I wonder if the family's slaves are expected to be included in such a drawing.  Even better are the statistics on free blacks that Pittman compiled from James and Walter Kennedy's books, The South Was Right and Myths of American Slavery. 

This is a disturbing book that is based on an overly simplistic view of slavery, free blacks, and Jefferson Davis's own personal history as a slaveowner and leader of a nation whose stated goal was the preservation of slavery.  The current push to commemorate this story in marble is based on little more than the outline of this story and it should concern all of us who hope to continue to expand and deepen our understanding of this crucial moment in America's past.

John Coski on Jefferson Davis and Jim Limber

Richard Williams recently posted a short article by historian John Coski on the relationship between Jim Limber and the Davis family, which appeared in the winter issue of the Museum of the Confederacy's newsletter.  While Coski does point to mutual bonds of affection between Jim Limber and the Davis family, he also suggests that there are many questions that cannot be answered.  This, of course, could change in the future.  While Coski does not address the debate surrounding the proposed statue of Limber and Davis, his analysis does bring the question of whether such a statue is justified based on the available evidence into sharp relief.  Is the Sons of Confederate Veterans justified in proposing a statue based on such limited evidence?  If so, why?  What precedent would this set in terms of the way we go about commemorating and remembering other moments in American history in our public spaces?  Finally, I hope Mr. Williams is not operating under the assumption that Coski's essay ought to be interpreted as tacit support for this proposed statue.  If anything the essay highlights the wide gulf between what serious historians can legitimately conclude about this relationship and the message that a marble statue will no doubt communicate.  You will find Coski's essay below.

Using Ken Burns's "The Civil War" in the Classroom

This talk was presented today in Philadelphia at the 2008 Meeting of the Society of Civil War Historians.  The panel was titled, "Gearing Up For the Civil War Sesquicentennial in the High School Classroom" and included, James Percoco, Ronald Maggiano, and Andy Slap. 

When it aired in 1989 Ken Burns’s epic documentary about America’s Civil War garnered the largest audience in PBS history. Viewers who had little interest or knowledge of the Civil War were attracted to the powerful images and sounds as well as the narration by David McCullough and commentary by Shelby Foote - the combination of which served to introduce a heroic and tragic story to a national audience. While historians have spent considerable time analyzing Burns’s documentary as historical interpretation, little attention has been given to the ways in which the film can be utilized in history courses on the high school level.¹  All too often the film is used as a launching pad to other classroom activities or simply shown with little student preparation; such an approach renders students as passive observers rather than engaging them in trying to better understand the choices that went into the film’s script along with how the various elements come together to tell a coherent story.²   More importantly, students fail to see the film itself as a product of long-standing assumptions about the war that are embedded in our popular imagination and often guarded as sacred.  The beginning of the Civil War Sesquicentennial in 2011 will provide a unique opportunity to introduce questions of memory and interpretation in our high school history classes.  In the time that I have today I would like to talk briefly about how I engage my students with questions of memory and interpretation through a careful viewing of Burns’s The Civil War. 

George Fitzhugh, John Calhoun, (and Pat Buchanan?): Paternalism is Alive and Well

Check out the Vast Public Indifference blog for an excellent post on the question of whether colonial slaves were Christians.  While the post is worth reading, I was struck by her referencing of a recent syndicated column by Pat Buchanan in which he espouses what I assumed to be an extinct justification for slavery within intellectual circles (Yes, even though I rarely agree with Buchanan I consider him to be an intellectual.):

First, America has been the best country on earth for black folks. It was here that 600,000 black people, brought from Africa in slave ships, grew into a community of 40 million, were introduced to Christian salvation, and reached the greatest levels of freedom and prosperity blacks have ever known.

As Caitlin points out in the post, it is not at all clear that the first few generations of slaves subscribed to Christianity in large numbers.   For now, however, let's assume that all "600,000" were indeed introduced and accepted Christianity and ignore serious history as Buchanan does.  Does anyone really believe that their being introduced to a new religion outweighs the moral calculus surrounding the trauma of being separated from loved ones, community, and one's very identity?  Would Pat Buchanan accept this as a price for salvation for his own family and friends?   How could anyone justify the suffering and death that accompanied slavery with salvation?  If this bizarre picture of how our moral universe operates is true than God does indeed work in mysterious ways. 

Jefferson Davis and Jim Limber: A Response to Richard Williams

Fellow Civil War blogger and author, Richard Williams, seems bewildered by some of the responses to the proposed statue of Jefferson Davis and Jim Limber by the SCV in Richmond.  [Read the Richmond.com article here.] It's impossible to know which academics he is referring to, but no doubt he read my earlier post on the subject, which included a number of objections.  Williams's objections are all over the place and for the most part make little sense.  First, let's dispense with his whining about the legality of the Lincoln-Tad statue.  Williams is indeed correct in pointing out that the organization responsible for the statue is having some difficulties with the IRS and have recently lost their status as a tax-exempt organization.  I'm not sure why this is important, but let's admit it and move on.

Second, Williams refers to the Museum of the Confederacy's year-long program to commemorate the life of Jefferson Davis.  No doubt, the MOC should be engaged in such programs and I only wish that other organizations were able to muster the resources and interest to mark the bicentennial of Davis's birth.  That said, it is not the case that the MOC is "celebrating" Davis's life as Williams points out.  Anyone who visits the MOC knows all too well that their mission is to present exhibits and public presentations which reflect the best in Civil War scholarship.  Their line-up for a recent symposium on Davis's life included, William Cooper, Joan Cashin, William C. Davis, and Donald Collins.  I've read all of their books on Davis and Mrs. Davis and I can state with confidence that they are not engaged in celebrating.  Again, it is hard to know what this has to do with a proposed monument to Davis at Tredegar.  Finally, Williams suggests that Gary Casteel, who has been hired to sculpt the statue, is a sufficient reason to approve the final product.  Williams is "confident [that Casteel] will produce a beautiful and historically accurate statue.

Not once does Williams comment on the design.  I have absolutely no problem with another statue of Davis in Richmond; the question, however, is whether this particular design, which acknowledges Davis's relationship with Jim Limber, is appropriate.  [Background on this story can be found here.]  I am willing to grant that everything in that story is true, though Davis scholars have noted that some of the details are sketchy. 

The question that I would like Williams to address is whether he believes that a statue depicting Davis holding hands with his adopted black child reflects his broader views on race.  I understand that race relations were incredibly complex in the antebellum and wartime South, and it is important to understand the context and background for this particular decision on the part of the Davis family.  I wonder, however, whether this is the best way to proceed since so little has been written about this incident.  What do you think Mr. Williams?  More to the point: What message does Williams believe that visitors with little background in American history will walk away with?  Does Williams and the SCV believe that this statue reflects Davis's overall beliefs about race?  Will visitors know that Davis was a large slaveowner, president of a government whose expressed purpose was the preservation of slavery, and that he remained committed to a racial hierarchy to the end of his life?  Does the SCV plan to include some kind of plaque that will assist visitors in their attempt to understand this statue?

As I stated in the earlier post, it is easy to see what is behind this particular statue.  The SCV is engaged in a conscious effort to distort the history of the South and the Confederacy to a point where issues of slavery and race are moved to the background.  Their world is inhabited by friendly slaveowners and loyal black slaves and soldiers.  This self-gratifying view of the past comes at a heavy price, however. 

One wonders what Jim Limber or one of Davis's own slaves would think of such a statue.  Unfortunately, in the hazy world of the SCV such questions have little weight.