I saw, today, that the Southern Poverty Law Center issued their “Whose Heritage? Public Symbols of the Confederacy” report, yesterday. Anyone who has watched the SPLC over the years knows how they are inspired and, to be clear, they simply don’t recognize complexities in the story of anyone associated with the Southern Confederacy. Of course, it’s not surprising that they built the foundation of the report on the backdrop of the Dylann Roof story. After all, why wouldn’t they? It serves as the perfect rhetorical architecture, tapping into emotions and revived racial tensions in the wake of that event. If you have any doubts, look directly at what they had to say:
Following the Charleston massacre, the Southern Poverty Law Center launched an effort to catalog and map Confederate place names and other symbols in public spaces, both in the South and across the nation. This study, while far from comprehensive, identified a total of 1,503.*
Now I could go into a point-by-point critique of various remarks made throughout the report, but it’s really not necessary. Their position, albeit accompanied by blinders, seems simple enough… in that public symbols of the Confederacy are nothing more than white supremacist-motivated and rooted in the era of Jim Crow. I don’t see anywhere that they actually have either an understanding of anything else… or that they would care to acknowledge any other understanding. Giving wiggle room would, after all, bring their actual agenda into question. In making an argument, that’s simply something you’d prefer not to do… although that tactic is also disingenuous.
Additionally, the SPLC is motivated from the “top-down”approach to history, which is a broad-brush approach without regard for what might have actually motivated monument placement/road namings/etc. at the local level. I’ve spoken many times before, throughout this blog, about the “bottom-up” approach to history, and the clarity that it offers for those who really (and, yes, I’m directing that to those who like to make the “heritage” argument as much as to those who want to dismiss it) want to try to understand localities and its citizens at a particular time.
I see, for example, that the two Confederate monuments in my home county (Page County, Virginia) are on the SPLC map. It’s convenient for them to lump those two monuments into their narrowed definition, without any considerations as to what the actual stories are behind the two monuments. Having spent considerable time studying the stories, and finding private papers of individuals who were behind the monuments, I actually know the real story, and at no time (yes, even in private papers) was there any mention about raising monuments to keep another race in check, or anything of the kind. In fact, local Confederate veterans may have been less than happy about the first monument (1898), while a spearheading son of a Confederate veteran spent more time anguishing over who was “loyal” and who was not, in the second monument (1918)… and hence (quite possibly), there was no plaque (as had been planned) of all of the names of those who had served. [see a little about those situations in this post from 2009]. I won’t even get into the complicated story of slavery in Page County and how it may AND may not have inspired county citizens to serve in either the ranks of the Confederacy, or in some other capacity in support of the Confederate government.
So, before singing the praises of the SPLC and their report, ask yourself about when and where history is convenient to them, and when it is not. To be frank, ask yourself the same of anyone, whether they be for or against Confederate symbols in public spaces. While there are a number of people who wish to dismiss, out-of-hand, any notion other than “the Confederacy was… no matter what personally motivated individuals… about sustaining slavery”, there’s a bigger story, and, yes, it is relevant to the stories of those monuments…. especially those in those quiet little Southern towns. Begin asking yourself why people want to dismiss that part of the story. Does history really matter to them, or is/are agenda(s) best served by being carefully selective with the history?
Cenantua's Blog 
Richard Williams
April 23, 2016
Robert – great post. While the study and charts could be useful and are interesting, I don’t think there’s any doubt as to what the SPLC’s motivation and agenda is. Just a simple Google search reveals quite a bit. Your statement, “there’s a bigger story” is simple, yet profound and is very applicable in this situation; and in more ways than one.
Hope you are well.
Robert Moore
April 23, 2016
Thanks, Richard. Doing well. Just winding down the semester and preparing for the household migration. 🙂
Dudley Bokoski
April 23, 2016
The charts show a spike in monuments around the time of the 50th and 100th anniversaries, which is not surprising.
Herb Slusher
April 24, 2016
Herbert Barbee would be rolling in his grave. His intent was to honor the those that fought with honor, albiet they lost with grace and honor. As you know my GGGF was James D. Slusher who was H Barbees friend and neighbor who Im told that helped him move and erect the statue(s?). Back in those days, in my family, it was customary for the patriarch to name the new male babies. Hence I’m the third Herbert in My family. SPLC should be viewed with care, I’ve followed them for years. Their leader has a questionable past and they (SPLC) certainly have an agenda. Question: How does tearing down statues help southern poverty.
Herb
Richard Williams
April 24, 2016
An example of a “bottom up” story about Confederate memorial that doesn’t fit the SPLC’s preferred narrative:
http://m.roanoke.com/webmin/news/church-window-illuminates-complexity-of-past/article_26b3949f-0e73-5632-89cc-587654ad0eb6.html?mode=jqm
WJoe Hicks
August 15, 2017
Richard Williams- I know that you may not be open to understanding, but here goes… The bottom up example from Fifth Avenue Presbyterian Church makes the SPLC’s point of enfranchisement and participation in decision-making.
Whenever everyone has a voice in the decision, these artifacts are often kept and not removed (like in that church). However, these artifacts were put up, on public property, when everyone did NOT have a voice, NOW, that everyone has a voice (enfranchised) and with all citizens able to have their say, the people say NO, not on PUBLIC property. Do you see the CONSTITUTIONAL differences? Legal immigrants, who have to study WHY America is great, get this point. As a true patriot, please try to understand this issue of enfranchisement.
Richard Williams
August 16, 2017
“I know that you may not be open to understanding, but here goes…”
You “know”? Great way to start a dialogue. Whatever. The fact is, these monuments and memorials change meaning over time. I understand they mean different things to different people at different times. Moreover, beyond their original symbolism and however someone interprets them today, they are also great works of art. Your logic would dictate that Mount Rushmore should be sandblasted/dynamited as is now being proposed for Stone Mountain. Mount Rushmore (on public property) includes 2 slaveholders and Teddy Roosevelt who would also be considered a racist by today’s standards. Though Lincoln is considered to be the “Great Emancipator”, he also favored sending blacks back to Africa. Not everyone had a voice when Mount Rushmore was proposed either.
What would you think if someone proposed destroying Mount Rushmore for all the same reasons and logic arguing for the removal and destruction of Confederate monuments.
I favor adding new monuments, statues and memorials to and for those disenfranchised and ignored in the past, not tearing down existing ones. I’ve been involved in 2 such efforts myself. Have you? I hope you, too are open to understanding.
WJoe Hicks
August 16, 2017
Thanks for your response. I apologize for presuming that you are like other Southerners who stubbornly refuse to follow Lee’s General Orders No. 9 (as painful as it is).
Unfortunately, the day may come when Mt. Rushmore is relocated because the people in that future time are so horrified by the totality of what it represents.
All the more reason to deeply consider our collective actions not from a short term economic point of view of decades and centuries, but from a longer term view. Especially memorials and statuary must primarily consider the timeless, moral consensus of future generations and even civilizations.
For me, unity is of the utmost importance. I would make my case, yield to the collective wisdom of all informed citizens and learn my lessons gracefully.
Richard Williams
August 16, 2017
Thank you. I accept your apology. Again, the logical outcome of all this moral outrage is that no one in our history can stand up to the scrutiny of what we’re seeing. ALL memorials and monuments will have to go. All of them – if one is intellectually and morally consistent. There are, in fact, now discussions about removing Mount Rushmore, the Jefferson Memorial and a statue of Washington in Chicago (I think). The Lincoln Memorial was vandalized over the weekend. How can you criticize someone for that, if they claim “moral outrage”? It’s the slippery slope. How about JFK? He was a womanizer and used his power as a man to take advantage of women who were “powerless.” Certainly, that is morally repugnant. So why do we memorialize someone who took advantage of women? Do you have an answer? Do you not see the inconsistency and hypocrisy?
http://nypost.com/2012/02/05/teen-mistress-addresses-relationship-pols-cold-war-fears-in-memoir/
It’s utter madness.