SCV's official response:
Letter sent to the editor of the Smithsonian Institute's magazine.
------
Mr. Caruso,
I am the Executive Director of the Sons of Confederate Veterans. I am also a recently retired Marine combat officer. Our esteemed 501c3 non-profit organization was formed in 1896 from the soldiers who fought for the Confederacy and we have a good reputation not only with the federal government, but in our state and local communities. Our members are honorable men who do great deeds in our communities and a great many of our members are veterans of the United States who have served this nation in war.
This past weekend, we broke ground on a new museum dedicated to the Confederate soldier. This is our charge and mission to do so. There is nothing controversial about that. I will point out that even the Smithsonian Institute has multiple museums dedicated to a particular perspective such as the African American History and Culture (quoting “through an African American lens”), the American Indian Museum (again quoting from the Smithsonian website “advancing knowledge and understanding of all tribes”), the Asian Pacific American Center, and numerous affiliated museums of like kind. We see this as positive history designed to look at history from many different angles. History is all inclusive and museums are designed to provide educational venues by which people can come, view items, read facts, and learn. We don’t always have to agree on everything, because history is not about only one perspective. According to the Smithsonian, “The Smithsonian Institution was created by Congress in 1846 as "an establishment for the increase and diffusion of knowledge."” Museums are not propaganda institutions. By the way, it was Jefferson Davis who was the impetus for your institution.
Yesterday Danny Lewis wrote an “article” in the Smithsonian Magazine entitled ‘A Controversial Museum Tries to Revive the Myth of the Confederacy’s “Lost Cause”’. How does he know this? Who told him that was what this museum is about? I take great offense to the tone, assumptions, misrepresentations, and the magnitude of inaccuracies in it.
First of all, I have not spoken to Mr. Lewis at all on this museum and neither has my staff. I have no emails or missed calls from him. If he is a professional, isn’t this part of journalism? Not even the name of the museum is correct in his article. The square footage is wrong. The organization’s intent of the museum is wrong. The cost of the museum is wrong. In reality, Mr. Lewis read a local article with hosts of inaccuracies, read a propagandist’s blog, and then went to town trashing our organization without doing any real homework himself. Is this acceptable to the Smithsonian?
I have great respect for the Smithsonian Institute and what it is supposed to represent. I am an institutional man and you probably are as well. The foundations of any institution can only support it for so long based upon how strong its foundations are. I would be ashamed if this kind of propaganda came forth from my organization. If the Smithsonian truly is an educational institution, this “article” is unworthy of the institution it represents. If this is what the Smithsonian is dipping to, then it begins the slow fall of its credibility as an objective institution.
I noted that Mr. Lewis states that he “focuses on stories from a Health/Science bent.” I recommend him keep to this rather than delve into areas he has no understanding and relies on parroting other people’s lopsided sentiments. This “article” is not balanced at all and is unworthy of the Smithsonian.
http://www.smithsonianmag.com/smart...evive-myth-confederacys-lost-cause-180960820/
Semper Fidelis!
Michael L. Landree
LtCol, USMC, Ret.
Executive Director
Sons of Confederate Veterans