It is fine to both privately and, to a degree, publicly reflect upon the lives of historical persons. It fulfills various needs of the living. Look at a historical person (or persons) and consider the part of the historical person’s character, actions, etc., and consider how one may take meaning from these reflections. For some, these reflections might even translate into incorporating qualities that some find desirable in the historical person into the way they conduct themselves in their own lives. As long as reflection does not become something greater than a source of inspiration, and I suppose, guidance (as long as it is positive), then it seems innocent enough.
Various aspects of the lives of both Lee and Jackson are sources of personal reflection for me. For one, I find different aspects of Robert E. Lee’s character worthy of consideration in relation to the way one conducts himself in life. As a military historian, I find the military brilliance of both Lee and Jackson a source of interest. I’m also intrigued, as a descendant of Confederate soldiers – many who served under Jackson – about what Lee and Jackson meant to them during and after the war. Some, I am sure reflected positively, and some, I am willing to bet because of the circumstances of their service, reflected negatively.
Yet, do people really need a specific day, designated by the government, to have positive reflection?
I would argue that it is not necessary, but then, I am sure that there are those who find satisfaction in the fact that designated days are opportunities to demonstrate to others either how great this historical person was in the past or how great the historical person is – still – in the minds of those who “celebrate” the life of said person. Perhaps it can even be said of these public demonstrations that people who engage in them are engaging in a form of rhetorical expression in order to persuade (with a capital “P”) others that the historical person that they celebrate should be remembered in the public consciousness in the same way that they remember the historical person. Therefore, are the actions of those engaged in public display of “celebration” simply reflective in a manner that could be considered so simple and respectable?
Some may (and do) ask the question, “why can’t you just let these people have their day?” Yet, when public demonstration can be perceived as rhetorical presentation, there is a problem. If it were something as simple as a reflective service at a graveside and a reflective service conducted in a chapel, then I don’t think I could as easily find a problem in it. Ultimately, however, there are greater issues at large in these events. One cannot deny, for example, that there are some (maybe the use of “some” here is not an accurate reflection of the actual number) present at these events who use Confederate remembrance and symbolism as a platform for expression against the very nation and flag that provides them with the opportunity to conduct these very events. Talk about hypocrisy… but perhaps it would be better to address what can be identified, without a doubt, in events such as these. Consider the grand procession/parade at Lee-Jackson Day in Lexington, from the grave of Jackson to the Lee Chapel, with many a Confederate flag floating in the breeze, and many uniformed as “Confederates” marching to the site… is this merely a reflective event?
When does a day of reflection turn into a day of demonstration? Perhaps, more importantly, when is humble and simple reflection not enough, but gaudy exhibitionism more necessary in order to better satisfy the “heritage pangs” of the living?
I find this particularly interesting considering the personalities of the persons honored by these displays. As Lee was one who survived the war and provided a window into his beliefs on the reflection of the war through his postwar words, the entire exhibitionism of the new era Confederate remembrance movement is considerably out of line with the very person who is front and center in the remembrance activities themselves.
The Civil War is something that we should not forget. Many, many men served in gray because of the various ways they interpreted meaning in “cause” (and many served unwillingly with no attachment whatsoever to any “cause”). The manner in which these soldiers in gray served is certainly worthy of reflection, and even remembrance. Yet, in the end, no matter the “cause,” it seems too often, too easily forgotten by some that both the flag and the “nation” went down in defeat. Therefore, as people who reflect on the part their Confederate ancestors played in that war (or, if not a descendant, on the part their favorite Confederates played in the war), should Confederate remembrance come in the form of “celebration” filled with gaudy expression, even exhibitionism, or should remembrance be more reserved and humble. Again, the “cause” and flag were defeated, therefore, the ability to conduct public expressions of remembrance in Confederate remembrance is truly a privilege made possible only through the courtesies extended by the nation that won the war. I think Lee was quite aware of this, and as this man is truly central to Confederate remembrance, this fact, most especially on Lee-Jackson Day, should be made clear as at the top of those things that should not be forgotten.
Cenantua's Blog 
Kevin
January 17, 2009
Thanks for such a reflective post on this subject. There are legitimate questions that can be asked when a government decides to set aside particular day in remembrance of a historic figure. The choice itself is political and reflects those people who are in positions of power. Notice that the virtues that are claimed to be reflective of Lee and Jackson can be found in any number of Virginians through its history so the particular choice becomes noteworthy and ripe for critique. The notion that somehow people ought to be silent to allow others “have their day” strikes me as naive and ultimately a failure to appreciate how remembrance days function on a cultural and political level. This seems to me to be the case regardless of the individual in question.
cenantua
January 17, 2009
Thanks for commenting Kevin. One of the things that strikes me is that days formerly recognized for one thing are rolled over, over time by politicians, to fit the times and take on new meaning. Armistace Day was rolled over into Veterans Day, and, of course, Washington and Lincoln’s birthdays were rolled over into “Presidents Day.” I think the writing is on the wall for Lee-Jackson Day and we will see it become something like Virginia Heritage Day, probably sooner than later.
I am especially bothered by the suggestion to “allow others to have their day” when it comes to Confederate remembrance. Obviously, there is much more attached to the act of remembrance than simply recounting the “greatness” of former generals.
Mark
January 17, 2009
A fantastic post. Your points on remembrance vs demonstration are excellent; the point of demarcation between the two is difficult to find. I would posit that those who would wish for a demonstration on Lee-Jackson Day(or those who want to recreate the bombing of Ft Sumter in 2011) may be more steeped in mythological memories of the war, those who would look for a more sober remembrance have more solid footing on the realities of the war and its personalities.
Frankly, there are parts of this exercise that are quite unsettling to me, nowhere in the discourse around this event is the question of whether this demonstration is even appropriate and in good taste. Your point about the nascent hypocrisy is very well-taken. I guess I’ll just look to this Tuesday as an example of how far we’ve come instead of Lee-Jackson Day as a reminder of how far we have to go
cenantua
January 18, 2009
Hi Mark, Thanks for the comment. You bring up something else that amazed me, and something about which I learned only recently. That reenactment of the bombardment of Ft. Sumter is horrific to even consider. Talk about in bad taste. It “sillifies” the seriousness of the real event. I think you are absolutely correct in your statement about sober remembrance being indicative of a more solid footing on the realities of the war and its personalities.
I find it very interesting to consider the manner in which Lee-Jackson Day is conducted in Lexington and the manner in which the Lincoln event is held event is held two counties away near Harrisonburg. The Lincoln event is respectful and is not in need of reenactment soldiers or flags a flyin.’ Indeed, well grounded in reality.
Michael Aubrecht
January 17, 2009
A well written post Robert, but I can’t say I understand this statement. You write:
“Confederate remembrance is truly a privilege made possible only through the courtesies extended by the nation that won the war.”
What ? If the South had won there would still be Confederate Remembrance and days such as these in question, so to state that its only through the graciousness of the victor is a tad overstated don’t you think?
For many people Tuesday is important, for many others its just another day, so which side has the right to infringe on the other? Seems to me that both sides have an equal right to either acknowledge and celebrate, or simply ignore President Obama’s swearing in. Neither is wrong in doing so.
Michael Aubrecht
January 17, 2009
I reread your post and I think I understand now. You mean that the North allowed the South to remember when they could have prohibited it – NOT that their victory alone preserved that freedom which is how I took it. Still I stand by my last part. Thanks for making me think.
Michael Aubrecht
January 17, 2009
I cannot for the life of me see how you guys can still have an issue with this. This is the whole point of America. This is what liberty and freedom is all about! EVERYONE has an equal right to their beliefs and in most cases expressing those beliefs.
That goes for EVERYONE from the Catholic Diocese to the Gay Pride people, from the NAACP to the KKK – from Far Right – to the Far Left and everyone in between! When you question the rights of one group to celebrate their heritage over another (whatever that heritage is), you go against the very fundamentals of this country.
How blessed are we to live in a country like this. I say VERY blessed! And I’m sorry Robert, but your statement of “I am especially bothered by the suggestion to “allow others to have their day” when it comes to Confederate remembrance could not be more anti-American. I’m a conservative Christian, but I would stand up for the rights of the liberal atheists because they have just as much right as I do.
I have to respectfully add that you guys are sounding quite hypocritical in your arguments. Maybe my Libertarianism is showing through here, but I cannot believe what I’m reading.
cenantua
January 18, 2009
Michael,
Please don’t turn my statements into something they are not. First, as I have said before, let people believe what they will, but when they go that next step to try to sell what they believe as some form of absolute historical truth, then it becomes a problem, especially from the vantage point of an historian who spends a considerable amount of time trying to sift through the myths in order to find the truth.
But getting back to the subject of this post… so, what’s wrong with the celebration of Lee-Jackson Day? Like I said in the post, if the reflections on the day weren’t so gaudy but exhibited a spirit that was reflective of a consciousness that remained aware of the fact that Confederacy lost the war (something simple and respectful at the graveside of Jackson and in the Lee Chapel), then I probably wouldn’t be so openly critical. Also, keep in mind, I clearly pointed out my personal reflections of Lee and Jackson in my post. But Confederate flags a flyin’ and people dressed in Confederate uniforms marching down the street in Lexington as a part of it, then it gets gaudy. In fact, at that point it becomes a distasteful mockery of the memory of the men who were Confederate soldiers.
Yet, like I said, it gets even worse than that, especially when some of those who partake in the remembrance use both the act of remembering and the Confederate symbology as a platforms for other things that have nothing to do with remembering the simple Confederate soldier.
Richard Williams
January 17, 2009
Michael:
Lee-Jackson day doesn’t fit the template of modern “memory” studies.
“Confederate remembrance is truly a privilege made possible only through the courtesies extended by the nation that won the war.”
A “privilege”? You can’t be serious. How Orwellian. Crimethink. Quite unbelievable.
cenantua
January 18, 2009
Richard,
I’m glad you commented. It gives me the chance to tell a story. I’ve been present at a number of Lee-Jackson Days in the past. In one particular instance, I heard a fellow talk about Robert E. Lee in Lee Chapel. I enjoyed the presentation. It was reflective of the man’s respect for the man about whom he was speaking. Sure, historical “memory” was present, but it was appropriate for the day, the place, and the man (Lee). In fact, those with me enjoyed it as well. However, when a senior officer in the S.C.V. got up and started delivering his angry little message, especially in light of the event and the place, then all of us felt more than a little uncomfortable and were left with a sour taste in the wake of the event.
So, yes, Lee-Jackson Day is more than remembrance but a platform for some of those who gladly take the chance to beat the drums of hate and discontent all over again. Oh, but I should mention that the fellow giving the Lee presentation, the part of the presentation that we appreciated, was you.
Nonetheless, yes, Richard, Confederate remembrance is a privilege… It is only a privilege as extended under the laws (Constitution) of the government that defeated the Confederacy. Those who have the opportunity to partake in the events need to be mindful of the fact that things could have been much worse… no monuments, no remembrance, no imagery. It’s quite obvious that a number of folks forget this and should be reminded of the fact.
Richard Williams
January 18, 2009
I’m not a senior officer. I’m a Chaplain and have actually turned down offers for higher office.
But thank you for the compliment. I cannot comment on anyone else’s remarks, other than to say that there is a place and time for anger and that venue is not the proper one. However, your take away may differ from others.
“Nonetheless, yes, Richard, Confederate remembrance is a privilege… period. It is not a right. It is only a privilege as extended by the government that defeated the Confederacy.”
So, if the Federal government decided that the privilege of “Confederate remembrance” should no longer be allowed, would you support, morally or otherwise, arrest, and prosecution of those who chose civil disobedience, since free speech/expression (including burning the US flag) and assembly are RIGHTS, and not privileges.
Since we defeated England in both our wars with them, is their remembrance of their heroes a privilege extended by the United States government and, thus, would justify an invasion by our armed forces to tear down statues of their heroes, and arrest dissenters? Logic would dictate your agreement.
cenantua
January 18, 2009
Richard,
Your position within the SCV has no bearing on this. I made the distinction between your presentation and that of the senior SCV officer, and that the senior officer used the occasion as a platform for something that did not fit with either the day, and most certainly not the surroundings (Lee Chapel).
Also, you are missing the point. The privilege of conducting Confederate remembrance was extended, and over time, it has been taken as granted, and even an assumed right. In the aftermath of a war where the government saw the offending body as in rebellion, this extension of privilege was certainly not a given right. The restrictions could have been much greater. This is what is forgotten.
Richard Williams
January 18, 2009
During federal occupation and until the states were admitted back into the Union, I can see your point. After that, the notion that “Confederate remembrance” is a “privilege” has absolutely no basis in fact or in law. No such statutes that I know of exist, state of federal. If they were ever attempted, they would most assuredly be found unconstitutional. (Free speech and right to assemble.)
Quite frankly, and with due respect, I find the notion absolutely ridiculous.
cenantua
January 19, 2009
Richard,
Whether you “find the notion absolutely rediculous” or not, perhaps instead of countering with what you believe to be so, your point might be better served by actually taking the time to see if such heavy restrictions were considered. I’m quite certain that they were, but even those who were in the midst of figuring out how to deal with reconciliation were able to recognize that postwar emotions were not always in the best interest of sincere reconciliation. In the end, were their thoughts really driven by the founding documents or their interpretation of them? Or were their actions, in the end, driven by other things? Your statements do not show that you have considered any of this.
Furthermore, take what you consider relevant from the founding documents and apply them as you see fit to your life and the time in which you are living, but do not begin to assume that is the way people in the postwar government saw things. Your perspective or interpretation of the founding documents now had no bearing on that of those who were engaged in the decisions of how to deal with reconciliation then. What matters is the way they viewed things. Consider the situation as they saw it first, and then interject your reflections on their thoughts and actions.
Prove my theory wrong with a bit more than just suppositions and emotion.
Richard Williams
January 18, 2009
PS: Our founding documents make it clear that our rights come from God, not government. I do not need, nor do I desire, permission to honor whoever I so choose. Freedom of speech and the right to assemble are God-given rights, not some whimsical “privilege” granted by an increasingly corrupt government.
I find that repugnant.
caswain01
January 18, 2009
Robert you keep picking at our collective Southern heritage, and sooner or later we’ll discover we are in the end just Yankees with a funny accent!
I guess where I have an issue with any “remembrance” event is if/when that celebration starts throwing figurative or literal rocks at the symbols of our country. I’ve been to many a reenactment where those in gray were allowed to say some downright disgusting things about the American flag. But it was considered “in character.” (And for some reason, the “Yankees” were not allowed to do a “Billy Sherman” on the nearby houses as part of their “in character.”)
But then again, we can’t really expect reenactors to play true to history, can we?
Now as a descendant of at least a couple of men who wore the gray, I’m somewhat sentimental. I like to hear about the virtue of the men who took up a cause. But what I most like to hear about is reconciliation.
If you look back at the words the veterans themselves said, in the 1890s and 1910s, in their old age, while dedicating monuments around the country, the major recurring theme is “reconciliation.” Where is that spirit of reconciliation today in our rememberance of the veterans?
cenantua
January 19, 2009
Craig, You are exactly right. Instead of reconciliation, I am afraid that too many folks like to use Confederate remembrance as a platform for their disgust with the Federal government, a continued vessel of hatred on various levels, and anything but that which is reflected in any real effortsof veterans to reconcile. I’ve been a witness to it in some who participate in reenactments and in some during the time in which I regularly participated in Confederate descendant organizations and remembrance activities. Certainly, not everyone did it, but there was enough present in some participants to make me sick.
Richard Williams
January 19, 2009
If you deny that freedom of speech and the right to assemble is not a well-established right, both by our constitution and by case law, then we have no basis to even discuss the issue.
Its alternate universe time.
Nothing personal, but I maintain your position is ridiculous on its face.
Best,
RGW
cenantua
January 19, 2009
Who said that I deny it? I never said that, nor do I advocate for it. The fact of the matter is, “Confederate remembrance” will not be made illegal, but it will lose whatever spot it continues to hold over the course of time, probably sooner than later. Some will continue to celebrate it, but the day will come when it is no longer recognized as a government holiday.
The real question is… was the denial of freedom of speech being considered in the wake of the Civil War? Was the act of rebellion and the consequences to those who engaged in it defined in the founding documents? Acts against the government were certainly seen as defined within the laws as “treason,” but en masse rebellion was not considered by the founders in their documents (though it seems they may have certainly talked about the possibility of rebellion under their breath and within certain circles, especially considering the problems presented by the institution of slavery). How then, did those in the government view this situation? Were they to restructure the laws? Did they consider it? If it was considered, what truly kept it from becoming a reality? Was it really their interpretation of rights as defined by the “founding documents?” Because this was not covered in the founding documents, I suggest that it was considered.
Incidentally, concluding your counter-point with the infusion of the word “rediculous” takes this back, once again, to an argument with too much emotion interjected. I’m learning not to take offense, but truly, Richard, to continually belittle my suggestion is actually that which is rediculous. I don’t mean to offend by saying this, but I seriously suggest you reframe your counter-argument with something more concrete. You are interjecting a tactic to diminish not only my suggestion but the value of this exchange as something serious.
It is logical that what I suggest was considered because of the nature of large-scale rebellion (rebellion as defined by those who won the war, and even among some of those who engaged in it). It is not rediculous if the matter was considered. It is more important to find out why suppression of Confederate remembrance did not happen, not just why you think it didn’t happen. From that, those who engage in new era Confederate celebration should appreciate the fact that the “boom was not lowered” and that, because it was not, they can still engage in the practice. I cited Union Veteran Hewitt on at least two occasions in this blog. Clearly, he saw the problem with Confederate remembrance. It certainly, therefore, is not something that I’m making up.
Richard Williams
January 20, 2009
Robert:
You write:
“but en masse rebellion was not considered by the founders in their documents ”
I, along with Thomas Jefferson, beg to differ:
“. . . whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.”
Do you want to retract?
“The real question is… was the denial of freedom of speech being considered in the wake of the Civil War?”
No, Robert, the real question/issue was that YOU stated that Confederate remembrance was a “privilege.” That is, without question, factually wrong, and has no basis in fact or law. Go back and read the string of comments.
I acknowledged that may have (and reasonably so) been the case during occupation and Reconstruction. But after that, we have this little thing called the Constitution and Bill of Rights. We’re not under Marshall law. I find it incredulous that you could argue otherwise.
“From that, those who engage in new era Confederate celebration should appreciate the fact that the “boom was not lowered” and that, because it was not, they can still engage in the practice.”
Again, you are factually incorrect. I can engage in the practice because of the 1st amendment. But I do I appreciate the fact that the founders included the 2nd amendment for protection against those who wish to mess the the first.
Best,
RGW
cenantua
January 20, 2009
No, Richard, I am not retracting. I can certainly see how what was written in the Declaration was something that all could embrace at the time that document was created for the reason of breaking off from England, but at what point did this, in written words, carry over to the Constitution in guidance for sectional rebellion within the United States and how to to deal with the rebellion faction in the aftermath? It isn’t there. In the end, the question of efforts to consider denial of freedom of speech in the wake of the Civil War just don’t go away because you say so. It was considered by some, but if you cannot offer historical evidence to show the difficulties that legislators faced in this and how they ultimately used the Constitution in guiding their postwar actions, then this exchange between us is finished.
I suggested that Confederate remembrance is a privilege, and, at the very least, considering the Constitution protects the “right” to celebrate the causes of a former rebellion, this should, very much, be something that is regularly considered and clearly acknowledged in the atmosphere of such remembrance practices. I suspect it would be very difficult to find another country in the world that allows people to celebrate and hold on high the “cause” that was deemed as at the root of a rebellion such as that which was experienced from 1861-65.
Incidentally, I’m very well aware of the “little thing we call the Constitution,” Richard, as I swore, on more than one occasion, to uphold it. Once again, you resort to mocking and belittling my suggestion in order to try and make your point. Move beyond this practice and find for us all, that the idea of suppressing Confederate remembrance (which, despite your simply dismissing it because you say it didn’t happen, was a consideration in some) was negated because those in postwar government saw this as a violation of the Constitution. Counter-argument in this manner, Richard, is something I will be glad to entertain in this environment. I’m thrilled to engage in good discourse over why people handled matters in history, but your regular employment of mockery and redicule as tactics will no longer be entertained here.
Richard Williams
January 20, 2009
“In the end, the question of efforts to consider denial of freedom of speech in the wake of the Civil War just don’t go away because you say so.”
Not because I say so, because the 1st amendment says so. Please, again, read my very first comment and you will clearly see that I was addressing one sentence in your post which was not referring to “the wake of the Civil War” but, from a common sense read, the present.
“but if you cannot offer historical evidence to show the difficulties that legislators faced in this and how they ultimately used the Constitution in guiding their postwar actions, then this exchange between us is finished.”
That has nothing to do with my original objection, to wit: your contention that “Confederate remembrance” – which is expressed by the right of assembly and speech – is a privilege. Robert, this is the most fundamental understanding of the 1st amendment. Your continuance down this line of reasoning is, quite frankly, amazing. Free speech is protected by the 1st amendment, as is the right to assemble. In regards to “Confederate remembrance”, there is no caveat, there is no footnote, there is no exclusion, there is no special exclusion for “Confederate remembrance”. Its a right, period, end of story.
Again, read my original comment. That was the extent of my challenge, these other side issues are simply distractions.
“Incidentally, I’m very well aware of the “little thing we call the Constitution,” Richard, as I swore, on more than one occasion, to uphold it.”
Thank you for your service to our Country. I, too, took an oath to uphold the Constitution on more than one occasion, serving as a Virginia Magistrate for 12 years.
“that the idea of suppressing Confederate remembrance (which, despite your simply dismissing it because you say it didn’t happen, was a consideration in some)”
I never said that. I even acknowledged (twice before, three times now) that such suppression during occupation and Reconstruction was to be expected. But Reconstruction is over and we are not under Marshall law. The Constitution rules.
“find for us all, that the idea of suppressing Confederate remembrance (which, despite your simply dismissing it because you say it didn’t happen, was a consideration in some) was negated because those in postwar government saw this as a violation of the Constitution.”
Again, I never said it didn’t happen. I fully acknowledge, for the 4th time, it DID (past tense) happen. Read my very first comment. That comment was in response to one sentence in your post:
“Confederate remembrance is truly a privilege made possible only through the courtesies extended by the nation that won the war.”
You were not speaking of the “postwar South.” You were speaking of the present – “is” – and my point is that, in the present, “Confederate remembrance”, regardless of how you or anyone else feels about it is a 1st amendment right and NOT a privilege.
So, let me be clear once more. There was, and rightly so, suppression of Confederate remembrance immediately after the Civil War. That was to be expected in order to maintain the peace, at least initially.
That being said, once the states we re-admitted to the Union and rights restored, the United States Constitution, which we both swore to uphold, protects the right of assembly and the right of free speech. “Confederate remembrance” would certainly fall within those clearly enunciated rights.
Are we in agreement or do you wish to maintain, given my explanation above, that “Confederate remembrance” TODAY, is a privilege and not a right which would fall purview of the 1st amendment?
cenantua
January 20, 2009
Richard,
I’m just asking that you not interject your interpretation without first considering the words of those who were around in the postwar years; if you are actually aware of any discussion over the matter by those who were there; if there is actually something to show that they considered the 1st Amendment as guidance in postwar policy. I’d like to know if there was even anything considered to continue beyond reconstruction. I don’t need to hear you repeat to me what the 1st Amendment means. I’m well aware of that. I’m well aware that reconstruction is over and we do not live under Marshall law. I’m also well aware of the fact that Confederate remembrance, though not “itemized as a right,” is covered under the 1st Amendment. HOWEVER, the fact that people can “celebrate” or praise the “cause” of a rebellion made against the United States should be appreciated… it should be appreciated that one can do this under the flag that some continue to call the “Yankee flag” (an argument that I personally can’t stand). I’d even say that those who are able to do this appreciate it as if it were a privilege, though it IS covered under the interpretation of the 1st Amendment. Frankly, I think far too many who engage in Confederate remembrance lose sight of this fact. Ultimately, the ability to celebrate the cause of a former “rebellion against the United States” is quite peculiar. However, I think (but have nothing to prove that thought yet) that since certain legislators who wanted the South to pay, knew that to bring the South back into the Union as states of the Union, the 1st Amendment prevented any efforts to suppress remembrance in any form, the hands of any of those who wanted to make the South pay were tied. Nonetheless, I want to find evidence of this or evidence of something to the contrary, but I want to see what THEY said. I want facts, not speculation.
Ultimately, have you ever stopped to think that maybe I ask questions such as these because I found most of the arguments made by others during my time as a participant in Confederate remembrance full of holes, unsustainable, or clearly slanted with little or no consideration given to all of the facts that are available? I also found some activities anything but reflective of efforts to understand the complex nature of the men who were Confederate soldiers, no matter whether they were volunteers or conscripts. The objective of this blog is to discuss possibilities in history, not to argue. I enjoy considering the “many sides of the cube of history” (the metaphor I like to use), and a great many more possibilities exists than a lot of people are able to admit.
Richard Williams
January 21, 2009
“the fact that people can “celebrate” or praise the “cause” of a rebellion made against the United States should be appreciated…”
I certainly do appreciate it Robert. All points well-taken, but ultimately, our appreciation should be for the founders’ foresight in acknowledging that our rights, including the 1st amendment, come from God, and not from the ever-shifting sands of political thought and opinion.
That’s all I’ll have to say here on the matter. I may post something about this on my blog at some point.
All the best,
RGW
cenantua
January 21, 2009
Thanks Richard. I much prefer this exchange close in this manner in lieu of the alternative.
cenantua
January 21, 2009
http://rebelhistory.blogspot.com/2009/01/civil-war-memory.html
David Schneider
January 21, 2009
Wow. You close the exchange with my blog? I’m honored. But its scary.
I’m sorry that I don’t have the time to read through and respond to all the excellent posts on this blog and others.
I’ve been fortunate that the handful of SCV camps and events I interacted with never disintegrated into griping about the federal government. The vast majority of those members were always intelligent and had a deep and insightful understanding of American history.
cenantua
January 21, 2009
Hi David, I linked to your post because I thought it further helps to “illustrate” my thinking on the matter. Again, good post.
As far as reading through everything, don’t worry. The best thing about the blog is that pages are never really static. Discussion is fluid and ongoing, so it’s here whenever you come back to read it and want to make comments.
I know a lot of folks in the S.C.V. who are great down to earth people, able to embrace both the history and mythology of the past (as well acknowledge the distinction between the two), well-grounded in the present, and looking to the future (strange as it may seem to some, that sort of balance is possible). They love their heritage, they love the home of that heritage, but they don’t use either of those as a platform for griping. Then, I have also encountered more than my fair share of problems in the S.C.V. (and regretfully, they aren’t always just in the “basement”). I often think that in lieu of concentrating so much concern on the “pc” stuff (as one example) that is seen as a threat to Confederate remembrance, more time needs to be spent on making a clear distinction between reflections on Confederate ancestry and beating the drums of hate and discontent through the platform of Confederate remembrance. In the end, I think that the inability to grapple with this will prove more destructive.
William Flax
February 3, 2009
While it is certainly clear that what one chooses to celebrate is a fundamental right, inherent in a free individual; moreover, one protected from
federal interference–in each of its different aspects–by each of the several clauses and functions of the First Amendment;–it seems to this Ohioan that it is terribly important at this moment in time, that as many Virginians as possible may be rallied to celebrate their particular heritage.
Lee and Jackson, in particular, represent a particular code of honor, and self-sacrifice, which is terribly absent from most of our present day “leadership,” in America. But the cause for which Jackson gave his life, and Lee his fortune & career, represented an ongoing heritage that goes back to concepts vindicated in Magna Carta, and directly expounded in the writing of Thomas Jefferson, including in particular, The Declaration Of Independence.
The importance of Virginia remembering her heritage to us in Ohio, is that her heritage provided the ethos that motivated most Ohioans in the early 1800s; that which from the inception of the Constitution in 1787, defined the nature of the new Federation, to which both of our States adhere. That Virginian arms failed against terrible odds in the ultimate battles of the War, is no argument against either the cause for which she contended; nor can it possibly justify a post – Culloden type suppression of her people’s culture.
I would refer the posters not only to the First Amendment, as others have done, but to the warp and woof of the Constitution proper. Read in context, it will be seen to leave all moral questions, all cultural questions, all matters of local preference, to the States. The Federal role was never to force one ideology on the people of the several States. Whether the threat of such a new dispensation after the 1860 election was as great as many in the South feared, or not–that was the issue to most who rallied to the Confederate cause. Considering the gathering nightmare of Federal intrusion into local affairs since, remembering those brave men who contended against overwhelming force, so long and bravely, can only inspire more effective opposition to the present lawless trend.
If that is to be seen as improper, America was improper from her inception.
cenantua
February 4, 2009
Thank you for your comment Mr. Flax.
If it were just as simple as “celebrating” heritage, this wouldn’t be so much an issue for me. First Amendment or not, since Confederate ancestry is also part of my heritage, I too often find the manner in which it is “celebrated,” rediculous exhibitionism and a mockery of the common Confederate soldier. Furthermore, as one who has been, in the past, in the middle of such events and heard other agendas launched under the guise of Confederate remembrance, there is sometimes more to it than an expression of passion for a peoples’ culture.
William Flax
February 4, 2009
It seems to me that you are dancing around your actual concern. While I have visited the Lexington area on several occasions–a very inspiring part of the Valley–I have never attended a specific event to honor your heritage. If someone has done something, there, that you consider out of the spirit of the values that Lee and Jackson fought for, would not a brief critique better focus the issue, rather than the more general comments.
It would not be fair for me to even speculate on what may be more specifically bothering you, but I will offer one specific as to why this Ohioan would offer his ‘two cents’ worth.
The South, today, has the largest percentage of Americans who still do honor the original roots of America. As a Conservative, who has over half a century in the battle to restore and retain the Constitutional Republic of the Founding Fathers, it is very clear that the battle over Southern heritage is critical to the struggle. If the Leftists in the media and academia, can make Southerners apologetic, rather than proud of their heritage, America may be permanently lost to an alien ideology that reverses the very basis of our existence. We need Southern Conservatives to stand fast, as a rallying point for all American Conservatives–as in,. “There like a stonewall, stands Jackson.” (I hope that I remembered the quote correctly.)
There has been for some time a concerted effort to downgrade traditional Southern symbols. And, if some in some celebrations, have reacted with a bit of anger for being under attack; that is wholly understandable. Robert E. Lee was a saintly man. That he could urge an end to bitterness reflected his noble personality. I would urge an end to bitterness also–although it comes much harder for a comparative lout like me. But it is essential that Conservatives continue to celebrate the America that was, the Virginia that was, etc., and never let the detractors of heritage intimidate any of us into silence.
For a detailed response to the attacks on Southern Culture, as part of the general Socialist effort to remake America:
cenantua
February 4, 2009
Thank you again for commenting, Mr. Flax.
“If the Leftists in the media and academia, can make Southerners apologetic…”
Now, please… first, why does it always have to be the “leftist in academia?” Isn’t that getting a bit over-used and serving more as a quick throw blanket for some to toss across all who present something contrary or threatening to “popular” memory of history? Quite honestly, why can’t it simply be a set of historians, plain and simple, who are frustrated with the mis-information presented in remembrance? Just as fast as historians try to show us the complexities of history, popular culture continues to perpetuate (and devour) more myths; therefore historians have reason to be frustrated. Is not the very act of remembrance, especially remembrance of a time well beyond our real memory, tainting the ability of the populace to look at the past with an open mind? I’m about to the point where I’m filled-up with the folly of some remembrance activities. I don’t know that we can totally grasp balanced understanding from the practice. It sometimes does nothing to aid in understanding, especially when it is usually reflective more of bias and self-serving tool of comfort and reassurance than anything else. Look, for example, at the situation before us now with the remembrance event planned for the two “black Confederates” in N.C. What purpose will this serve? What message will be left to the general public in the wake of the event? I hope that it will be an educational message based on understanding and not one to serve certain purposes.
Additionally, noting your reference to “Southerners” and “their heritage,” I submit to you that not all Southerners reflect on Confederate heritage as defining their heritage. Confederate heritage does not define Southern heritage, nor should Southern heritage feel obligated to be defined by Confederate heritage. The amazing and more interesting diversity of Southern heritage is too often lost in a romantic love affair with Confederate remembrance, and sometimes that affair is not defined by tricklings of history passed down through generations, but rather a modern perception based on what is “seen” through a very narrow lenses.
Ultimately, is history a fantasy or is it real? Is it excapism, perhaps? Left alone to popular memory, we may be doomed in our ability to understand and appreciate our dynamic past.
William Flax
February 4, 2009
My reference to the academic Left had nothing to do with a mere challenge to popular views of history. There has been an increasing Leftward trend in the Academic World over the past Century–actually since the birth of the Fabian Socialist movement in Britain in the 1880s, although the real progress in that direction, outside of a few centers, really caught fire after World War I.
Attempts to change the traditional views of history are a very small part of the trend. The present panic to artificially stimulate the economy–a forward looking, if sometimes silly and confused effort–reflects the Leftward turn in most college and university economic departments, for example.
Yes, indeed, the South had great diversity–and here is a fine example of how the South has been misrepresented on many Northern campuses–including my own Alma Mater of Oberlin, which was full of flaming Abolitionists at the time of the War, from which flowed your subject. The misrepresentation–at Oberlin in the 1840s & 1850s, but since World War II increasingly general–has pic;tured the South as a region of narrow mindedness & bigotry–whereas precisely the opposite has always been true. This has, of course, been based upon any useful isolated incident that could be employed to a scape-goating purpose–much the same technique that Hitler used to rally the German streets against the Jews (who among German Socialists had long served the same scape-goating purpose, as some Academics have used what they used to refer to as Southern Bourbons, here.)
But what I think you miss, in pointing out the diversity of the Southern heritage, is the reason that the South was; so much more tolerant of idiosyncrasy than, for example, New England–which Edgar Allan Poe, for example, used to rebuke in his literary reviews in the 1830s and 1840s for their narrow-minded attitudes. I would argue, from historic facts, that that tolerance flowed directly from a chivalric tradition–of course romanticized, as Chivalric traditions should be for inspirational purposes;–a chivalric tradition that flowered in the heroism of Lee and Jackson.
The fact that some Southerners may not consider the Confederate heritage as defining their heritage, seems wholly beside the point–certainly beside the point, if you only intend to focus on Lee/Jackson commemorations. If we are to require–as social policy, not as a curb of free expression–that only universally agreed holidays be publicly celebrated in a significant manner, we would soon have to cancel all our Holidays, except perhaps for New Years & The Fourth of July. Many of us find “Presidents’ Day,” which was originally supposed to honor the immortal Washington, an absurdity. Most of our Presidents over the past century & a half have been very unworthy of celebration. The Martin Luther King holiday, for another example, is absolutely ludicrous. He attacked the established society in the United States, not only in his native South, but all over–as well as the War in Viet Nam, etc.. Memorial Day would be offensive for the same reason a Lee/Jackson day may offend some, unable to honor military struggle and heroism. Labor Day–celebrating what, that people work? And, of course, Thanksgiving & Christmas offend the anti-religious zealots in the ACLU.
I had tried to insert a link, before, to a discussion on the campaign against the South, but it didn’t take. I will try again:
cenantua
February 4, 2009
Mr. Flax,
You have turned this quite astray from the intention of my original post and my replies to you. My comments and suggestions need no interpretation. I do know that my remarks are not a product of “the left;” they are mine, based on both personal encounters over the twenty years that I was in the midst of Confederate remembrance activities and personal findings in historical research. Therefore, the lengthy comment that you make about leftists has no relevance in regard to my reply.
Furthermore, the reason for my mentioning the diversity in culture was based on the manner in which some conduct Confederate remembrance and call it “Southern perspective,” as an “absolute,” suggesting something that it is not. That is a distortion of the facts and presented to the public as such is a lie with an agenda. It has nothing to do with Southern Bourbons, Poe, or anything to which you refer.
Have you read anything further in this blog other than this one post? I have eight direct Confederate ancestors and am able to look back at them with great interest, yet have the ability to do so realistically and honestly.
Frankly, the balance of your most recent reply reflects something as bad as what you suggests in “leftists.” It reminds me of yet another way in which history has been compromised for specific agendas in modern-day society. Sorry Mr. Flax, but you’ve taken this exchange far beyond discussion of historical subject matter and discussion of historical memory.
Brian C. Smoot
February 11, 2009
What the hell? Lee Jackson day in Virginia is to celebrate the memory of two great men who fought for a cause that was just and right. And if this offends some people, so what. If more people took the time to research what kind of men they were, they may have a different oppinion. But leave to the liberal politicians to kiss ass for votes and put down these men. These men had more honor in thie little finger than the white liberals of today. Yes the South lost the war. But it was a war that never should of happened. People praise Lincoln. But he is the reason the war happend in the first place. why don’t more people study Lincoln and the kind of man he really was. The blood of over 50,000 men is on his hands. Slavery was never and issue until the Union was loosing the war. Oh yes, they were loosing.
Lee, jackson day is a day to honor 2 Virginia men that loved their state enough not to betray it.
No dought Martin Luther King was a great civil rights leader. He did great things. But why at every turn must the ancesters of those who fought for a cause they believed in constantly have to defend the memory of those who fought.
So why can we not honor our heros as we see fit. Yes the Union won. And this is the United States. We have the freedom to honor and remember as we see fit. Hell, even Union generals respected Lee and Jackson. None of this should even be an issue.
cenantua
February 11, 2009
Brian,
You missed the point of my post. One can reflect on Confederate ancestry and even Confederate military leaders with awe and respect for who they were as human beings and what they did as military leaders, but it is the manner (exhibitionism) in which Lee-Jackson Day is “celebrated” that bothers me the most. Of course, the issue of celebrating “cause” is also problematic. Speaking of this, you shift this discussion to two other things, neither of which were a part of my post. First, you pick and choose what was “right and just” in your opinion of the “Cause.” Clearly, there is something absent in your “memory” of all that was a part of the “cause.” Second, you are making this a “political” exchange, which it is not. Move on beyond this as talk of “leftists” and modern politics has no part in this blog.
Lastly, when you made the comment “if more people took the time to research,” you are clearly unaware of the readership that is familiar with both Lee and Jackson. Of course, it might serve you well to do some research yourself considering the casualty figures that you cite.
Jim
March 11, 2009
I’m dizzy from the comments here, but I must agree with Richard Williams in that the freedom to celebrate Confederate heritage is fully protected under the 1st Amendment as right rather than a privilege. And I don’t believe anyone celebrating Confederate memory needs to feel uniquely indebted to our government for this right regardless of whether it bothers you.
What bothers me in the field of history or any other social endeavor is the presence of partisan or individual biases coming out and stepping over the line regarding civil rights and it seems to be a perpetual issue. Too many times have I witnessed these biases couched in language necessarily detracting of Confederate memory. Examples are warnings and pedantic suggestions of how one is supposed to interpret history or commemoration.
This appears to be the current trend for our nation’s laws and policies. Government expansion necessarily occurs at the expense of individual freedoms, and the freedom of our very thought and legal actions are under critique. I say celebrate whatever you want however you want as long as you’re not hurting anyone else.
I would also like to say that it is not the flag that is important rather the ideas represented by it. Note that the Confederate flag is used as an international symbol of reform and secession by people who believe their current government is not acting in their best interest. Rather than call it “treason”, it is thought to be patriotic to initiate actions to combat tyranny.
cenantua
March 15, 2009
Jim, Concentrate on what was said at the end of those comments. I already clarified my point and that includes the fact that, yes, it is protected under the 1st Amendment. What “bothers” me is the exhibitionism that goes along with this. As I have said, if this did not include a bunch of people dressed up in Confederate uniforms and flying the flag as a part of some grand exhibitionism as if the Confederacy had won, if this were not a part of the events, I probably wouldn’t have bothered posting about the day. As for “celebrating” however one may want as long as it “doesn’t harm another,” well, what do you see as “harm?”
cenantua
March 15, 2009
“I would also like to say that it is not the flag that is important rather the ideas represented by it. Note that the Confederate flag is used as an international symbol of reform and secession by people who believe their current government is not acting in their best interest. Rather than call it “treason”, it is thought to be patriotic to initiate actions to combat tyranny.”
This is far beyond the scope of this post and considering the many layers behind the flag, or more specifically, it’s many uses in the years after the war, it’s well past time to find another emblem/symbol to use for these “other Causes.” That’s all the discussion I’ll have on this specific matter within this post. However, please feel free to comment on specific statements made within the post.
Jim
March 16, 2009
I’m still having trouble understanding how any tribute, however showy, is a concern when that tribute represents a real historic event that involved a major part of the population. You could just as easily argue that every historical celebration has it’s “pretentious” and cheezy side, but it’s up to the individual to interpret the degree and I would think the expression itself is protected by the Constitution. So, why the focus on this day? I thought the whole discussion was rather long winded to simply get this point across, but I’m probably misreading something.
Leslie Sigal Javorek
January 15, 2010
PREFACE: The dates that the above post and comments were originally posted is displayed as 2009 so I’m assuming that it is only an error in the year and that I’ve come late to the party. But because I view this discussion as an important one, hopefully I can help keep it going.
The argument over which terminology is more appropriate, “privilege” or “right” goes to the heart of what I believe underlies a great number of problems that our nation is struggling with at this very moment. If all of our citizens had the same understanding of what those two terms mean and how they function then the type of emotional argument displayed above would have no cause to arise. Personally, I believe that a nationally shared definition of those terms would also go a long, long way to curb people from looking to the federal government to solve problems that it was never intended to have dominion over and has proved over and over as being the least effective at solving such problems whenever they have acquiesced to such public/political pressure.
Part of the confusion occurs from the fact that, after first determining which policies will serve as the foundation for our government, our founding fathers chose to break down those policies into separate categories and then described the basis they relied on for assignment to one category or another which began with those policies they believed reflected “God-given rights”. From Richard’s comments above, I think that this is where the true controversy lies and so it is important to we all get on the same page as to why that modifier was included in our Constitution. Since “God” was not one of the signatories to that document nor a physically active participant to the Constitutional Congress and since “God” has never self-published a list of any “rights” he was granting to one, some, or all humans. Thus, any time anyone refers to anything as “God-given” they are being perhaps more than a little presumptuous. At the same time, I believe that most people (our founding fathers included) use such language to reflect their sincere belief that God is not only “just” but that he wants his creations to be able to use the tools He gave them to reach their maximum potential. It is actually these “tools” (not what we can do with them) that have been categorized as our “God-Given Rights”. But just as the Bible, Quarran, etc. contain a definitive set of rules that place limits on the use of such tools/rights, so does our Constitution. Where one cannot reasonably deny that God did not give anyone immunity from the consequences of using the tools he gave them for evil purposes, one cannot reasonably believe that in recognizing certain abilities or potential that a person is born with as a “God-Given Right” that our founding fathers were granting full immunity to those who exercise those rights in a manner which unfairly harms another.
What also needs to be recognized is that despite the fact that most “Earthlings” (not just US Citizens) agree that certain abilities and potential are “God-Given”, the majority of our planet’s population live under government regimes which not only fail to recognize that origin they actively try to suppress any thinking on the part of their citizens which would lead to the belief that they may actually have abilities and potential outside of what has been specifically and narrowly granted by their government. The I’m trying to make here is that our founding fathers had both the good faith and humility to admit that all US citizens have abilities and potentials as a gift from God (and not the government). They also had the wisdom to recognize that free-reign to exercise those “rights” without any consideration for the affect on others would only lead to destruction of all. It is for that reason that the US Constitution is NEVER intended to stand alone rather it is REQUIRED to be read together with Federal and State and Local statutes and rules in order to be interpreted as what a citizen is “allowed” or “not allowed” to do. So while “free speech” is recognized as a “God-Given Right” there are statutes and rules which clearly place limits on the exercise of that right in order to protect others from harm.
As to the specific controvery over “gaudy celebration” vs. “respectful contemplation”, I agree with cenantua’s position as to the impropriety of anti-government (or anti-any individual or group!) demonstrations at government sponsored “observances” and likewise feel that such activity or speech at privately sponsored “observances” are offensive. Unfortunately, I don’t think it’s possible to legislate either morality or good-taste without risking greater harm. That being said, I think it’s more than fair to use our votes and voices to let government, religious leaders, and others know that we find any active support/participation in such activity on their part to be in conflict with their publicly mandated duty to foster a peaceful, cooperative, productive society.
Leslie
http://icondoit.wordpress.com
Robert Moore
January 20, 2010
Leslie, That’s alright. Yes, this post is a year old, but that’s ok, the blog is compressed time, right 🙂 Thanks for your comment. I think you make some excellent points and, frankly, you are quite correct in your statements about “rights.”