I was going to post something else about layers in flags, but I just lost interest in that. Instead, I’m going to pose a question…
Is Confederate remembrance a right or a privilege?
No, seriously… (and this demands serious and thoughtful answers… not rants).
At what point did some of those who partake in Confederate remembrance forget a very generous postwar policy (or why is it that some who partake only remember what they want?) On a side-note, anybody want to tell me who made that policy possible? Anybody want to tell me who denigrates the key person made that policy possible?
Let me bring to light some comments from a person who earned the right to voice an opinion about Confederate remembrance (by the way, I’ve used this quote before in a post several months ago)…
… regarding the war from a moral and political standpoint, it sometimes seems as if the war did not last long enough. It took years of the terrible scourge of war, it would appear, to convince the people of the seceded states, and to wring from them the acknowledgement that they were better off without slavery than with it. And perhaps if the war had lasted a little longer, and the Rebels had felt still further the scourge of war, those who now have so much respectful regard for the flag of treason, and the Lost Cause and their defenders, might have finally become convinced that one flag and one cause and its defenders are enough to honor; and that there should be no place in the patriotic regard and affection of the people in this free land of ours for the Rebel flag, the Lost Cause or their defenders. Big as this country is it ought to be too little to give room for any display of honor to the Rebel flag, the Lost Cause, or their champions, dead or alive. Therefore, no soldier who would be faithful to his country and the cause for which he fought should join in any ceremony of decorating Rebel graves, of holding reunions with Rebels, or of putting up monuments to them.
A few years since Gen. Sherman, at a Soldiers’ reunion said that it was commendable to decorate Union soldiers’ graves, to encourage reunions and to put up soldiers’ monuments, as to do these things was to create and nurture a patriotic sentiment. Granting the truth of this, it follows then as the night follows the day that to take part in these or similar ceremones, when done in honor of or with Rebels distinctively as such, in contradistinction to being Union soldiers or citizens, is to engender and to nurture disloyalty. No Union soldier should do it. The reason given by those of them who do so, is that they wish to remove the animosities of the war, and to cultivate a fraternal feeling between the sections. The motive is good, but is it not paying too dearly for kindly feeling and fraternal regard when they are obtained at the cost of the inculcation of disloyalty?
The people of the late seceded States claim to be now as loyal as those of the rest of the Union, but while there is a growing improvement in respect to the loyalty of the former, there is too much of the old disloyal spirit among them yet. Many instances might be given; but only that of the utterance of the following sentiment by Gen. Early at the unveiling of the monument erected in 1891 to the memory of “Stonewall” Jackson, and the manner in which it was received, is given: “If I am ever known to repudiate the cause for which Lee fought and Jackson died,” said Early, “may the lightning of heaven blast me, and the scorn of all brave men and good women be my portion.” According to the Charlottesville, (Va.) Chronicle, from which the above quotation is taken, this sentiment was cheered by twenty thousand throats. The fair inference is that Gen. Early and those cheering his sentiment are as much Rebels as they ever were.
The same newspaper above named says that there were ten thousand Union soldiers present at the unveiling of this monument. While the loyal sentiment of the land thus suffers the inculcation of treason, and itself to be insulted by demonstrations like that of the unveiling of the monument referred to, and others of similar character in honor of late Rebels or the cause for which they fought, by those who lately bore arms against the government – there is no obligation of good feeling or of fraternity that demands of Union soldiers the countenancing and aiding of these traitor-breeding demonstrations, by their presence at them. It is to be hoped that the country is to be spared the humiliating spectacle of many more such disgusting manifestations of falsity on the part of the Union soldiers to the cause for which they fought, as that it had to witness at the unveiling of the monument erected to the memory of “Stonewall” Jackson at Lexington, Va.
This is a quote from William Hewett, a veteran of the 12th West Virginia Infantry.
Clearly, some had issues with the remembrance movement. Some were even more extreme in their views, calling for the blood of the Southern leaders. Yet, even Hewett acknowledges (though he clearly had issues with it) that former comrades-in-arms were forgiving and participated in tributes to (and alongside) their former foe.
So, the point of this is to say that the worst case scenario did not happen… and a generous, yet unofficial, privilege was extended to the South that they might remember, with honor and dignity, their veterans, living and dead. There was nothing wrong with honoring the dead (in our society, some might say that this is a right); but was it wrong to allow some to honor the “Cause?” After all, to Hewett, honorable remembrance of the “Cause” presented a “traitor-breeding” scenario. Was Hewett justified in his concerns for the future… and the past?
Is it possible to honor the dead, but not the “Cause?” Are the two joined so tightly as to present the belief that honoring both is a right? Can we not honor the Confederate soldier without honoring the Confederate “Cause?” Are there not things worthy of honor in the Confederate soldier, without honoring the “Cause?” Why should we honor the “Cause?” Would taking away the “Cause” as an element of “honoring” equate to only partial honors to the Confederate soldier? The people are unmistakably our people, but is the “Cause” our “Cause?” The “Cause” is dead, therefore it is a “was” and not an “is,” and therefore, the “Cause” cannot be ours.
In any case, is not the honor of the Confederate soldier, and the very code of honor itself, slighted if we forget that any Confederate remembrance in which we partake is only the result of a long-ago honorable gesture of peace and reconciliation? Forget the fact that reconciliation forced other things to the back-burner… oh wait, for the fact that other things were put on the back-burner, perhaps, in the process of Confederate remembrance, we should be more mindful of the sacrifices of others. Just as freedom isn’t free, perhaps Confederate remembrance isn’t free either. Yet, those who made the sacrifice so that Confederate remembrance could thrive… were not Confederates at all. Now that’s just ironic.
Sherree
September 26, 2008
Hi Robert,
Good morning,
Thanks for taking time from your studies to post.
You have put forth some very thought provoking ideas and insights concerning the Confederate flag and concerning how we remember the Civil War, and I again applaud you for attempting to reach a middle ground in this discussion.
I cannot see the Confederate flag through any other lens than the one I described to you in an earlier post, because my parents were politically active in the civil rights era and I saw firsthand through their black friends and colleagues the suffering the flag represents. I cannot erase that, and you are not suggesting that I do. White supremacists defiantly and openly used the Confederate flag as a symbol of racism and oppression. That is indeed one layer of the flag’s meaning, and its most damning layer, in many ways.
As to what the flag meant to the individual soldier who fought and died in the field, that is another question, and a question that is not addressed in today’s assessment of the past, except in simplistic, highly politicized ways by both sides of this debate. The new view of history that developed over the past thirty years is indeed revisionist and political in its aims for one very stark and simple reason: the original Lost Cause view of the history of the Civil War was itself revisionist and political in its aims as well, therefore forcing the new history to be written.
My problem with the modern debate is the lack of respect and civility I see on both sides. It is not the place of present day historians or lay men and women to denigrate and ridicule the suffering of the men, black and white, who were in the Union Army, nor is it the place of modern historians and lay men and women to denigrate and ridicule the men who were in the Confederate Army. Also, it is certainly not the place of anyone to lessen or diminish in any way the suffering of African Americans in this nation for over four hundred years.
In closing, I am including the words of a man who was also qualified to comment on the war that defined his generation and many generations to come. It seems to me that if we cannot study and reflect upon the past with the respect suggested in this quote; then we should not study and reflect upon it at all, much less comment upon it as if it were a pleasing activity to amuse ourselves. Perhaps one day future generations will read our emails and comment upon our character. I wonder what they will think of us.
Thank you.
The quote:
“Future years will never know the seething hell and the black infernal background of countless minor scenes and interiors, (not the official surface-courteousness of the Generals, not the few great battles) of the Secession War; and it is best they should not—the real war will never get in the books. In the mushy influences of current times, too, the fervid atmosphere and typical events of those years are in danger of being totally forgotten. I have at night watch’ d by the side of a sick man in the hospital, one who could not live many hours. I have seen his eyes flash and burn as he raised himself and recurr’d to the cruelties on his surrender ’d brother, and mutilations of the corpse afterward. (See, in the preceding pages, the incident at Upperville—the seventeen kill’d as in the description, were left there on the ground. After they dropt dead, no one touch’ d them—all were made sure of, however. The carcasses were left for the citizens to bury or not, as they chose.)
Such was the war. It was not a quadrille in a ballroom. Its interior history will not only never be written—its practicality, minutiae of deeds and passions will never be even suggested. The actual soldier of 1862-’65, North and South, with all his ways, his incredible dauntlessness, habits, practices, tastes, language, his fierce friendship, his appetite, rankness, his superb strength and animality (sic), lawless gait, and a hundred unnamed lights and shades of camp, I say, will never be written—perhaps must not and should not be. ”
Walt Whitman
cenantua
September 26, 2008
Hi Sherree,
Thanks again for commenting. It’s clear that you have an immediate connection in your memory that is tightly bound to anxiety in seeing the Confederate flag. I think this is where some (emphasis on “some”), who want to fly it show a lack of consideration for others. There are those who make the effort to be considerate and fly, for example, the First National. As opposed to the “others be damned” initiative, it’s at least a conscious effort that they are mindful of the fact that the symbology of the flag can represent some rather recent painful encounters.
You’ve actually touched on something that has been brewing in my mind, regarding a clash of “memories.” There is one set of “memories” that is more imagined than real and reaches out across generations to make a stronger connection; “imagined memory.” There is another memory that is not only real, but is living, and it is a painful memory; a “living memory.” When the “imagined memory,” that tries to reach across generations to find meaning in an ancestor’s struggle through the display of the Confederate flag, meets the “living memory,” with pains, for example, from the not so distant segregation era, then there is an obvious problem. Is it really an honorable act for those with “imagined memory” to infringe on the feelings of those with “living memory?”
Thanks again!
Sherree
September 26, 2008
And thank you, Robert.
I must say–you decisively nailed that argument and have again proven that you are providing a neutral forum for discussion of some truly painful issues for all concerned, white and black. That is honorable. Also, I would like to add that the black men and women with whom it has been the privilege of my family to be involved and intertwined for generations never judge the past, or the men and women who lived the past. The level of forgiveness of the black community of my area is, and always has been, legendary, and I do not mean the type of caricatured forgiveness of supposed “happy” slaves and their equally supposed happy pro-slavery descendants. I mean real men and women who both lived, and came to terms with, a history that was a veritable nightmare, yet still loved their equally damaged white brothers and sisters, since hatred destroys not only those who are hated, but those who hate as well. To me, that is history. That is identity. And it is a critical part of the past not being told, and I use the word “told” advisedly, since history is, after all, in spite of our best attempts to reach total objectivity, a “story”, as the word implies. Let us tell that story well. The present and the future depend upon it.
Robert Moore
September 26, 2008
Sherree,
I forgot to add… I think the modern debate is volatile between some because of a number of reasons. For one, I wonder if there actually can be a civil exchange as long as one group continues to attach the “revisionist” label to what is actually trained historical analysis. Lack of respect for those who have gone through the educational/professional hoops shows an inability to accept/respect the facts surrounding issues of historical importance. While academic historians are also labeled as elitists, the fact of the matter is that they have a right to feel territorial over the integrity of the profession (I’ll be posting on this in the near future). The profession is too devalued as it is. A fine example of history as a devalued profession (or maybe “diminished profession” as it exists in the popular consciousness) is illustrated in my recent post about “The Party of Lincoln!”
Sherree
September 26, 2008
Robert,
I agree with your last point completely. When I used the word “revisionist”, my intent was to illustrate that a revision of the history of the Civil War was needed because the Lost Cause history of the war was false. I think you understood that. Just wanted to clarify. Also, sometimes a correction can be too severe, but responsible academics guard against that by careful analysis. In all actuality the word “revisionist” probably needs to be dropped altogether. I agree with you on that point as well. The word has too many negative connotations.
Speaking of the academic world–happy studying!
Sherree
October 2, 2008
Hi Robert,
I would like to add an additional comment to this post, if I may.
The word “reckless” has been rather recklessly thrown about recently, and I think that is because we have learned to speak without speaking. Your observation about the layers of meaning concerning the Confederate flag is a critical observation, I believe, and I have a question concerning that observation, and would be interested in your thoughts.
Here is the question:
Is viewing the Confederate flag through the lens of the civil rights movement placing the flag out of its historical context and viewing it through a modern sensibility, or is it actually placing the flag squarely in its continuing–and as yet to be completed– historical context and perspective? Specifically, if the theory of some that hypothesizes that since the restructuring of society that needed to take place after the Civil War ended did not take place meant, in large measure, that the history of the war–more accurately, the history of the imperfect peace–was still ongoing and continued to be ongoing well into the twentieth century, through the civil rights era, and further, to the present moment, is correct; then aren’t we placing the flag within its evolving history by including its use in the civil rights era in the discussion ?
There is a definite disconnect in attempting to set the civil rights era aside and studying the war and the flag separate from it. This is not just a matter of memory and sensibility, in my opinion. It is a matter of history–that incomplete history that no one can talk about, yet that too many still live. Either we have two such strikingly different worldviews that the nation is irreparably divided, or we can find a way to heal the nation’s wounds. The truth has to be told first, though, and that is the issue. What is the truth? I am back to the point with which I originally began. The same set of facts is presented in a totally different light depending upon the theory. Is the inclusion of African American Confederates in one view of history an attempt to achieve a multi-cultural goal, or is it the truth, or is it something else? Actually, it seems that those of us who are white Southerners, white Northerners, or members of the white race in general need to understand that this question does not belong to us but to the black men and women who suffered the history of slavery that reaches across time and into the present moment. There is no period at the end of the sentence of that history yet. No end to a blog post. No theory that makes it go away.
Well, that is more than one question.
Thanks, Robert.