Civil War Memory

Commemorating an Important Moment in Virginia History

I am so sorry to have missed yesterday's unveiling of the Civil Rights Memorial on Richmond's Capitol Square.  The memorial honors Barbara Johns, as well as other students, who protested the physical condition of their school in Prince Edward County.  The resulting lawsuit, which was handled by Oliver Hill and Spottswood Robinson III eventually came to the U.S. Supreme Court with four other lawsuits as Brown v. the Board of Education of Topeka, Kansas.  As is well known this led to the landmark 1954 ruling that racially separate school systems are unconstitutional.  This is the first time that a woman or African American has been honored in an area that includes some wonderful statues to Confederate heroes and George Washington.  This is a worthy addition and one that Virginians can feel much pride in. 

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.

Just Leave Her Index Finger Be

From the Rants and Raves section of the Montgomery Advertiser: "For the dolts who continue vandalizing the Emma Sansom Monument in Gadsden by removing fingers on the 1907 statute. Emma Sansom was the young girl who pointed out a safe creek crossing for troops led by Gen. Nathan Bedford Forrest during the Civil War. This important bit of Alabama history deserves more respect."

According to the Gadsten Times this is the fifth time that Sansom's index finger has had to be replaced.

I wonder if this mischief is the work of the same group of white teenagers who painted the faces of the soldiers on the Confederate monument in Montgomery black. 

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.

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.

American Civil War Center to Make Decision About Davis-Limber Statue in August

The most recent news suggests that the American Civil War Center at Tredegar will make a decision about the proposed monument to Jefferson Davis and Jim Limber by the Sons of Confederate Veterans in August.  I will keep you up-to-date as best I can, but my guess is that this statue doesn't have a chance.  See previous posts, here and here.  The SCV's problem is that they are dealing with serious historians who also understand historical memory.

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.

Jim Webb Is No Historian (but so what)

The Politico has a feature on Senator Jim Webb's Confederate Heritage roots that is worth reading.  I guess this is what happens when you become a potential vice-presidential candidate.  There is nothing particularly new in terms of the views expressed or for those who are familiar with Webb's heritage studies.  We learn that Webb admires Robert E. Lee and has some choice words for those who would besmirch his good name:

The venerable Robert E. Lee has taken some vicious hits, as dishonest or misinformed advocates among political interest groups and in academia attempt to twist yesterday’s America into a fantasy that might better service the political issues of today.... The greatest disservice on this count has been the attempt by these revisionist politicians and academics to defame the entire Confederate Army in a move that can only be termed the Nazification of the Confederacy.

And it wouldn't be complete without the standard account justifying secession:

The states that had joined the Union after the Revolution considered themselves independent political entities, much like the countries of Europe do today.... The 10th Amendment to the Constitution reserved to the states all rights not specially granted to the federal government, and in their view the states had thus retained their right to dissolve the federal relationship

Yada, Yada, Yada, Yada... O.K...I get it.  There is nothing surprising about such views as they are the standard stock phrases that emanate from certain quarters.  The website also tried to make political hay out of a 1990 speech that Webb presented at the Confederate Memorial at Arlington National Cemetery.  Again, there is nothing surprising in it:

And so I am here, with you today, to remember. And to honor an army that rose like a sudden wind out of the little towns and scattered farms of a yet unconquered wilderness. That drew 750,000 soldiers from a population base of only five million-less than the current population of Virginia alone. That fought with squirrel rifles and cold steel against a much larger and more modern force. That saw 60 percent of its soldiers become casualties, some 256,000 of them dead. That gave every ounce of courage and loyalty to a leadership it trusted and respected, and then laid down its arms in an instant when that leadership decided that enough was enough. That returned to a devastated land and a military occupation. That endured the bitter humiliation of Reconstruction and an economic alienation from the rest of this nation which continued for fully a century, affecting white and black alike.

Open up Webb's high school history text and I guarantee that you will find a sentence that reflects his referencing of Reconstruction as "bitter humiliation".  As in the case with his earlier comments they are standard stock.  It's ashame that Webb reduces further inquiry as stemming from nefarious motives.  I assume Webb is an intelligent man; what does he see when he looks closely at the Confederate Memorial's friezes?  Is this really just a monument to the common Confederate soldier? Is there really nothing more to think about given that it was Woodrow Wilson who addressed the audience at the unveiling of the monument in 1914 and who ordered federal office buildings to segregate employees along racial lines.

We could allow Politico to suck us into a silly debate about Webb's views on history, but I am not going to make too much about the fact that he is not a historian and has little to teach me about how we as Americans remember the past.  To tell you the truth, I am much more interested in his proposed legislation that would offer full college tuition to those military personnel who serve three years and which is being resisted by the Bush administration and other Republicans in Congress. 

Update on SCV's Plans to Erect Monument to Jefferson Davis and Jim Limber

I had a feeling the Sons of Confederate Veterans would try something like this when I blogged about Jefferson Davis and Jim Limber a few weeks ago.  We all remember back in 2003 when the SCV put up a big stink about the unveiling of a statue commemorating Abraham Lincoln and his son Tad's visit to Richmond in April 1865.  Turns out that the monument is being planned for the grounds of the American Civil War Center (ACWC) and Richmond National Battlefield Park at Tredegar.  No surprise that Brad Bowling is behind this project.

Remembering Their Sacrifice on Behalf of the United States

Do these young Boy Scouts know why these flags look different from all the other flags placed on the graves of soldiers on this Memorial Day?