Confederate history is about race

[jtluttrell]

:puke:Read the comments.

Confederate history is about race - CNN.com

(CNN) -- It has been eight years since people in my state of Virginia got a chance to debate the meaning of the Civil War in front of the nation, and the comments posted on CNN and other news Web sites suggest our passion over the topic has not dimmed.

If Governor Bob McDonnell wants his fellow Virginians to think deeply about "how our history has led to our present," then his declaration of April as Confederate History Month has accomplished this goal, if not exactly in the manner he intended.

The problem with the celebration of Confederate History Month, however, goes far beyond McDonnell's "mistake" in not discussing the centrality of slavery in the Civil War in his original proclamation.

Confederate "history" means more than the four years during which Virginia and other states fought a war to form a separate country called the Confederate States of America. It refers to the many uses of Confederate symbols and evocations of Confederate history in the almost century-and-a-half since Appomattox as well.

This long history offers nothing to memorialize. Former Confederate soldiers quickly formed the Ku Klux Klan after the war to attack Reconstruction officials and the black and white Republicans who were trying to run the state, and they sometimes displayed Confederate symbols as part of their work. After congressional hearings shut down the Klan, copycat organizations continued to make use of Confederate symbols as they engaged in acts of political terrorism.

Former Confederates openly supported and participated in what many white Southerners called the "redemption" of the region, the reassertion of their control over state and local governments as Reconstruction ended.

In the 1870s and 1880s, the decoration of Confederate graves with flowers and flags and celebratory speeches and parades increasingly signaled a commitment to what came to be called the "Lost Cause," a decidedly partisan and self-consciously politicized account of the Civil War.

Though many supporters of secession believed during the Civil War that they were fighting against other Americans over the issue of slavery, amateur and professional historians, many with ties to the Confederacy worked to rewrite this history as a noble fight for states rights and a celebration of the sacrifice of Confederate soldiers. What members of the Sons of the Confederacy offer today as the "true" history of the region has its roots in this effort.

By the end of the 19th century, organizations like the Confederate Veterans and the Daughters of the Confederacy organized public acts of commemoration and the celebration of the "honor" of former Confederates.

Members of these organizations actively used their version of history to support the disfranchisement of African-Americans and the expansion of a white supremacist social order grounded in segregation. Across the region, Jim Crow segregation and Confederate commemoration expanded hand in hand, as the Lost Cause version of the Southern past justified the contemporary elimination of black rights.

iReporter: Gov. McDonnell "wrong and right" on the issue

When more subtle displays of Confederate symbols and history were not enough, white Southerners violently attacked and murdered African-Americans, sometimes publicly before large crowds. Lynchers sometimes brandished Confederate symbols.

In the early 20th century, monuments to Confederate soldiers appeared on courthouse lawns across the South and on the grounds of southern state capitols, marking these public spaces as the property of the white people who celebrated this "Confederate" version of the past. By the 1920s, a revived Klan made the Confederate battle flag their second-most important symbol, after the fiery cross, as they once again used violence and threats of violence to uphold white supremacy.

With the NAACP's victory in Brown v. Board of Education and the success of the Montgomery bus boycott, some white Southerners revived the use of Confederate versions of the past and Confederate symbols in their fight against the civil rights movement and integration.

Crowds who attacked civil rights activists sometimes carried Confederate flags as civil rights supporters carried American flags and sang "The Star-Spangled Banner" to counter these Confederate symbols. Called the "country club Klan" because of its public condemnation of violence, the White Citizens Council also used Confederate versions of the past in its opposition to African-American equality.

Today, Confederate history is as much about 1965 and the Voting Rights Act as it is about 1865 and Lee's surrender. The long history of the ways Confederate symbols have been used and Confederate history has been evoked to support racist violence and African- American oppression haunts Gov. McDonnell's declaration of Confederate History Month.

Confederate history cannot be separated from the issue at the center of the Civil War, slavery. But it also cannot be separated from the history of segregation, massive resistance, and the fight against the civil rights movement.

Historically, Confederate versions of the past and Confederate symbols have meant opposition to equal rights for all Americans. In officially recognizing Confederate History Month, Gov. McDonnell is asking Virginians to join together in celebration of this history of white supremacy.

[Daniel]

The counter argument as this is an Opinion piece on CNN.

Why we should study Confederate history - CNN.com

Why we should study Confederate history

By S. Waite Rawls III,

Special to CNNApril 14, 2010 8:37 a.m. EDT

Editor's note: S. Waite Rawls III is executive director of the Museum of the Confederacy in Richmond, Virginia.

Richmond, Virginia (CNN) -- "I'm a big history buff," President Obama said in an interview with ABC News" George Stephanopoulos. "And I think that understanding the history of the Confederacy and understanding the history of the Civil War is something that every American and every young American should be part of."

I am sometimes asked the same question that Mr. Stephanopoulos put to President Obama: Why study Confederate history? And I agree with the president's response.

As we approach the 150th anniversary of the Civil War, we look back to its centennial in the 1960s. A lot has happened in this country since then, and our appreciation of the lessons of history has changed with the times.

One constant has been the importance of the Civil War. It remains as the most important era of American history, a time when America withstood its biggest challenges to a constitutional democracy which then was still viewed as an experiment in a new form of government. The crucible of war defined the nation as we know it today, as we became "indivisible" and "with liberty and justice for all" for the first time.

During the 1960s, we Americans looked at the war as it occurred on the battlefields, because the conduct and course of the war dominated every single moment of every day. And the Confederate soldiers have historically captured our fascination even more than the Union soldiers.

Perhaps it is the gallantry and dash of leaders like Robert E. Lee or Stonewall Jackson or J.E.B. Stuart. Or perhaps it was the common enlisted men in the Confederate ranks, whose valor and courage -- in the face of tremendous privation and against overwhelming odds -- makes them stand out in world history as one of the best bodies of soldiers ever known.

If the fascination with soldiers continues from the 1960s to today, what has changed? Today, the study of Confederate history is much more "inclusive" -- to use the word of choice for many state's 150th anniversary commissions -- as we look more deeply into the past. Today we ask different questions of history and I think we get better answers. Let me list just a few of those questions.

What about slavery? We did not talk much about it in the 1960s. Today, we cannot study the Confederacy without studying 40 percent of its population. So now we look long and hard at this aspect of American history, including its existence and importance in the North. We see so clearly today that it was a wrong, so we need to ask why so many people 150 years ago did not see it as wrong and why several of the important Christian denominations split apart over this issue before the country itself split.

What about the slaves themselves? Why did many take advantage of the first opportunity to escape to freedom while others remained "loyal" to the South? And what about the 400,000 African-Americans in the South who were free long before Abraham Lincoln came on the scene?

iReporter: Civil War history could have been "teachable moment"

What about the Southerners who remained loyal to the Union and chose to fight in blue, rather than gray? What about the thousands of immigrants who "escaped" the wars of Europe yet enlisted in both armies to demonstrate their loyalty to their new country?

At the opposite end of the spectrum, what about the Native Americans who had been here long before any Europeans, yet allied with the Confederacy? The last Confederate brigade to surrender was composed entirely of Native Americans and commanded by Brigadier General Stand Watie, a full-blooded Cherokee.

What about the very important Jewish community in the South? Many served in the ranks while others saw civilian service, such as Judah Benjamin, who had three different Cabinet posts, or Phoebe Pember, who became the head nurse at Chimborazo, the biggest hospital in the world.

And what about the women of the South? The war thrust them into new positions of responsibility and many continued after the war to lead public enterprises that engendered self-esteem and respect.

We Americans -- from native Americans to those who have ancestors who wore the blue or gray to those who are descended from slaves to those who have recently come to our shores -- want to know ourselves. We want to understand why our country is different from the others around the world.

This is why millions of Americans read so many books about the Civil War or visit the battlefields or come to museums like The Museum of the Confederacy so that they can see first hand the ingredients that formed us. And this is why so many foreigners come to America to visit those same sites in order to understand why we are who we are.

The fact is that we must know the Civil War if we are to know America. And to know the Civil War, we must know and understand the Confederacy -- in all of its diversity.

The opinions expressed in this commentary are solely those of S. Waite Rawls III.

[Mark@Sea]

CNN has nothing, on any subject, worth my time to read or watch.

[enfield]

IBTL

Where'd the funny emoticons go?

:eating popcorn: Use your imagination.

[Il Duce]

f*ck cnn

[LastRebel70]

You know you never hear mentioned the 30,000 former slaves the fought for the South during the war or that at the outbreak of the war the largest slave owner was a black man in New Orleans, LA.

[gregintenn]

Confederate history is about race

NASCAR?

[Garufa]

NASCAR?

As a patriotic Confederate descendant I find that offensive and demand happy-happy joy-joy words clarifying that NASCAR is not related to a fine Southern heritage. Just to make me feel good inside....regardless of what you believe.

Edited April 15, 2010 by Garufa

[mcurrier]

As a disinterested third-party to the CW, never having been overly interested in it from a political standpoint, then add in being from upstate NY, I have to render my (professional) unbiased opinion (being a History major in college) -

I find that Confederate history is NOT about race, or entirely about slavery either. After much research and then having moved to the south with a few pre-conceived opinions (which have since changed), I have learned that Confederate history is primarily about honor and preservation of family, home and a way of life (not referring to slavery) that was threatened by a force from a completely different culture. The CW was more about the South's attempt to secede from the Union. Even blacks, both slave and free, fought on the side of the Confederacy, as well as free blacks fighting on the side of the Union. Once war began, many 'reasons' could be added to the list, slavery one of many, but slavery wasn't the primary and sole reason.

I can see and understand both sides from the perspective of both the Union and the Confederacy. I agree and disagree with many things from both sides. The CW was a terribly stupid and destructive war, and unfortunately we are today repeating many things that lead us into it.

[seez52]

As a disinterested third-party to the CW, never having been overly interested in it from a political standpoint, then add in being from upstate NY, I have to render my (professional) unbiased opinion (being a History major in college) -

I find that Confederate history is NOT about race, or entirely about slavery either. After much research and then having moved to the south with a few pre-conceived opinions (which have since changed), I have learned that Confederate history is primarily about honor and preservation of family, home and a way of life (not referring to slavery) that was threatened by a force from a completely different culture. The CW was more about the South's attempt to secede from the Union. Even blacks, both slave and free, fought on the side of the Confederacy, as well as free blacks fighting on the side of the Union. Once war began, many 'reasons' could be added to the list, slavery one of many, but slavery wasn't the primary and sole reason.

I can see and understand both sides from the perspective of both the Union and the Confederacy. I agree and disagree with many things from both sides. The CW was a terribly stupid and destructive war, and unfortunately we are today repeating many things that lead us into it.

what he said!!

[Guest 6.8 AR]

Ditto, mcurrier!

[leroy]

....I can see and understand both sides from the perspective of both the Union and the Confederacy. I agree and disagree with many things from both sides. The CW was a terribly stupid and destructive war, and unfortunately we are today repeating many things that lead us into it. ...

Amen brother! Many of the issues that brought on the civil war are coming to a crisis point today. The principal one is the power of an elite minority (...or ruling class...) to dictate policies to the citizens of the rest of the country that the majority (...or near majority; depending on how you count...) do not want. It is the ultimate hijacking of the concept of a representative republic by the dishonorable and despicable. At its core; it is the problem of a small elite group governing against the will of the citizenry. The ideal of a confederation or union of states died with Lincoln and his actions. Lincoln exchanged the ideal of state government for the iron fisted policies of the British Empire. Both Demorats and Republicans are guilty of continuing this policy.

Keep up the good work.

Leroy

[Guest PapaB]

Boy do I feel ignorant.

One constant has been the importance of the Civil War. It remains as the most important era of American history, ...

I thought the American Revolution was the most important era of American history, without it there would be no U.S.A. and no "American" history. I guess I'm just being a revisionist.

[Ebow1]

But Nascar is related to fine southern heritage. It originated from moonshiners suping up the cars to outrun the law. And moonshine and bootleggin are most certainly aspects of fine southern heritage.

[mcurrier]

Boy do I feel ignorant.

I thought the American Revolution was the most important era of American history, without it there would be no U.S.A. and no "American" history. I guess I'm just being a revisionist.

I do agree. The American Revolution and 18th century history is the area of my passion and expertise. It truly made this country a country, and what it was able to become leading up to today. Unfortunately, that is now being twisted, perverted and reversed by those temporarily in power. We need to be as vocal as our forefathers were and prevent the deterioration of these United States of America. I predict a major backlash of ultra-conservatism after the departure of the current regime. Blessing and prosperity the likes which we have never seen. We can thank little Jimmy Carter II for making so many of us thirst for it.

The Civil War has only recently piqued my interest (5-6 years ago). Modern day politics has a lot to do with that interest as we are starting to repeat history.

Off-topic, I have a civil war battle website of reenactment photos. Going to reenactments has boosted my interest greatly.

Battle Pics by Mark Currier - Civil War and Revolutionary War Reenactment Photos

[greenego]

Many in the south believed this was the second American Revolution and they were following the beliefs of the founding fathers. Just look at the Confederate Seal.

The Great Seal of the Confederacy was the official seal of the Confederate States of America. The seal prominently features George Washington, a southerner, on horseback in the same position as a statue of him in Richmond, Virginia. Washington is surrounded with a wreath which represents some of the important agricultural products of the Confederate States, including cotton, wheat, corn, and tobacco.

http://www.confederatemuseum.org/camp36/confederateseal.gif

[gregintenn]

As a patriotic Confederate descendant I find that offensive and demand happy-happy joy-joy words clarifying that NASCAR is not related to a fine Southern heritage. Just to make me feel good inside....regardless of what you believe.

It was a lame attempt at humor.

[Desert Rat]

garufa:

If it were not for the fine southern heritage NASCAR would not exist currently. As a person whose fore-bearers were some of the first settlers in Powell Valley of East Tennessee I am honored that NASCAR carries out the great southern tradition of trying to out run the "Revanoors"!

I agree the history has been distorted to fit some groups agenda while that group claims others are doing the same. It appears that CNN is still being proactive at accusing others of their indiscretions.

The following is an attempt at being PC or not!

The "Life time" indentured servants that were transported to this country to allow them to escape their poverty in their native country and their descendants should be thankful of the opportunities allowed them. If it were not for the relocation attempts in the 1700s and early 1800s they would still be living in backward countries.

Distortion is the name of the game in politics and "Happy-Happy, Joy-Joy" feelings and thoughts.

The preceding was only an attempt at providing an alternate point of view and may not represent the views of the author

Edited April 18, 2010 by Desert Rat
Add disclaimer!

[Will Carry]

The southern colonies supported the revolutionary war because Britian was abolishing slavery in her colonies. Without the support of the slave owners (southern power brokers) Britain may have won he revolutionary war and we would be like Canada. The first US congress debated for weeks on whether or not to abolish slavery. It was a close vote. The problem was readdressed in 1861............

[Desert Rat]

Yet the British continued with a form of bondage in all of their colonies until they disbanded the colonies after the second world war. The au pair practice is a modified form of indentured servant. The claim that Britain was abolishing "slavery" in the mid 1700s is correct if you view it as abolishing the term "slavery" or refining the process and using new terms to define modified practices that could be construed as the same behavior.

The victors rewrite history to place themselves in the best light. Even now we see some of the history from 50 to 60 years ago being rewritten.

[Will Carry]

Spot on old boy!

[Ebow1]

"Yet the British continued with a form of bondage..."

Kinky.