Limited Debate Confederate Heritage and Black History in Tension

Status
Not open for further replies.

Fewer ads. Lots of American Civil War content!
JOIN NOW: REGISTER HERE!

Pat Young

Brev. Brig. Gen'l
Featured Book Reviewer
Joined
Jan 7, 2013
Messages
30,375
Location
Long Island, NY
#2
Here is a description of the panel:

Published on Mar 30, 2016
The mass murder of nine Black worshippers at Emanuel AME Church in Charleston reignited the debate about how the Confederacy should be remembered. Do symbols of the Confederacy honor heritage or promote racial hatred? What is the relationship between Confederate heritage and African American history? The James Weldon Johnson Institute is pleased to convene a dialogue of historians specializing in 19th and 20th Century African American and Southern History to talk about the connections between Black History, Southern History and the politics of commemoration.

Panelists
Catherine Clinton, President of the Southern Historical Association and Denman Chair of American History at University of Texas-San Antonio
Joseph Crespino, Jimmy Carter Professor of History at Emory University
Leslie M. Harris, Associate Professor of History at Emory University
Maurice J. Hobson, Assistant Professor of African American Studies at Georgia State University
James L. Roark, S.C. Dobbs Professor of History at Emory University

The James Weldon Johnson Institute for the Study of Race and Difference supports research, teaching, and public dialogue that examine race and intersecting dimensions of human difference including but not limited to class, gender, religion, and sexuality.
 

Bee

Captain
Asst. Regtl. Quartermaster Gettysburg 2017
Joined
Dec 21, 2015
Messages
6,203
#3
I thought it interesting that Dr. Harris brought up the fear of forgetting history should too many monuments be removed. A couple of the other historians chimed in with the same concern over "What was slavery?" etc., should the "reminders" be removed. Is our collective memory as a society this fragile? I tend not to believe so, because most everyone is being educated by visual media, so that nothing will be removed from the collective conscience.
 

Pat Young

Brev. Brig. Gen'l
Featured Book Reviewer
Joined
Jan 7, 2013
Messages
30,375
Location
Long Island, NY
#4
I thought it interesting that Dr. Harris brought up the fear of forgetting history should too many monuments be removed. A couple of the other historians chimed in with the same concern over "What was slavery?" etc., should the "reminders" be removed. Is our collective memory as a society this fragile? I tend not to believe so, because most everyone is being educated by visual media, so that nothing will be removed from the collective conscience.
I do share their concerns however. New monuments will never be put up in large numbers ever again. Anti-removalists always suggest that we should "just put up more monuments to blacks of that era" knowing full well that a thousand new memorials to Civil War Era blacks are just not in the cards. The Confederate statues are at least reminders that places have histories. Tear all of them down and a lot of conversation starters are lost.
 

Pat Young

Brev. Brig. Gen'l
Featured Book Reviewer
Joined
Jan 7, 2013
Messages
30,375
Location
Long Island, NY
#5
I like the panel. I hope that the fact that it isn't the usual Civil War Roadshow set of speakers gives a sense that this discussion has parameters beyond those discussed by John Coski or Gary Gallagher.
 

Bee

Captain
Asst. Regtl. Quartermaster Gettysburg 2017
Joined
Dec 21, 2015
Messages
6,203
#6
I like the panel. I hope that the fact that it isn't the usual Civil War Roadshow set of speakers gives a sense that this discussion has parameters beyond those discussed by John Coski or Gary Gallagher.
"Civil War Roadshow set of speakers": love the visual! I found this to be true for the recent seminar at Carlisle when Professor Rubin spoke about Sherman. It was such a fresh perspective from the McPherson and Marsalek video I had watched a few nights before. I love seeing a younger crowd of historians rising to the top.
 

Old_Glory

2nd Lieutenant
Joined
Sep 26, 2010
Messages
2,935
Location
NC
#9
Here is a wide-ranging discussion of the interplay of Confederate Heritage and Black History in Tension.
Dr. James Roark referred to the monuments to Confederates as "The Lost Cause" and re-writting history, what a joke. I will try to make a note to never take anything he says or writes seriously in any way shape or form.

I simply cannot watch the rest after hearing that. By that inane logic, the Lincoln Memorial had nothing to do with honoring Lincoln. It was just built to make the Union North look better. Give me a break.
 
Joined
Feb 15, 2013
Messages
962
Location
Killarney, Ireland
#10
Dr. James Roark referred to the monuments to Confederates as "The Lost Cause" and re-writting history, what a joke. I will try to make a note to never take anything he says or writes seriously in any way shape or form.

I simply cannot watch the rest after hearing that. By that inane logic, the Lincoln Memorial had nothing to do with honoring Lincoln. It was just built to make the Union North look better. Give me a break.
You should have kept listening Old Glory, Joseph Crespino later ( can't remember the exact words he used) basically said the idea of making a carving of Jefferson Davis, R. E. Lee, and Stonewall Jackson was stupid when referring to Stone Mountain...I had a good chuckle at that.
 
Joined
Jun 29, 2011
Messages
5,738
Location
Mt. Gilead, North Carolina
#11
You should have kept listening Old Glory, Joseph Crespino later ( can't remember the exact words he used) basically said the idea of making a carving of Jefferson Davis, R. E. Lee, and Stonewall Jackson was stupid when referring to Stone Mountain...I had a good chuckle at that.

Yes I listened for quite awhile and I had several chuckles............What I heard was a one-sided discussion (Anti-Confederacy) and not as it was billed as....................


8th Alabama Infantry, Co. I    Emerald Guards.JPG

Respectfully,
William
 
Last edited:
Joined
Jun 29, 2011
Messages
5,738
Location
Mt. Gilead, North Carolina
#13
I agree Mr. Richardson, I think it would have been better if they would have had at least one guest who was not in favor of removing the monuments just to get that side of the argument.


Yes but that would have went against their agenda ! I am really disappointed in the discussion. I honestly expected better.


Civil War Flags.jpg

Respectfully,
William
 
Joined
May 18, 2019
Messages
23
#15
Yes I listened for quite awhile and I had several chuckles............What I heard was a one-sided discussion (Anti-Confederacy) and not as it was billed as....................


View attachment 98036
Respectfully,
William
I started to listen,.. until I heard that one woman, mention of her list of accomplishments, all having t do with female lib and empowerment, and other leftist liberal ideas. not sayin, just sayin' I could tell it was gonna be a one sided, lop sided disscusion
 
Joined
Jun 25, 2019
Messages
97
#17
One other thing that I wanted to add was the WAR.

Once combat operations began, the CW became something else.

It was no longer about "should we fight to defend slavery even though we ain't got none?"

It became . . . the federals invaded last month and have taken all our horses . . . the federals killed Uncle Buck at Shiloh . . . the carpet-baggers are taking our farm and Yankee cavalry is helping them do it.

It became intensely personal.

Sherman (and others) made the CW a total war. Southerners who lived through that forged a strong bond just like soldiers do today.

That bond has been handed from generation to generation.
 
Last edited:

matthew mckeon

Colonel
Retired Moderator
Joined
Oct 3, 2005
Messages
13,666
#18
One other thing that I wanted to add was the WAR.

Once combat operations began, the CW became something else.

It was no longer about "should we fight to defend slavery even though we ain't got none?"

It became . . . the federals invaded last month and have taken all our horses . . . the federals killed Uncle Buck at Shiloh . . . the carpet-baggers are taking our farm and Yankee cavalry is helping them do it.

It became intensely personal.

Sherman (and others) made the CW a total war. Southerners who lived through that forged a strong bond just like soldiers do today.

That bond has been handed from generation to generation.
Lots of people have made the distinction between "total war" such as was practiced in the 20th century, and "hard war" which was Sherman's tactics in Georgia and South Carolina. While, as Winston Churchill said, the opposing sides in the Great War practiced every form of destruction and killing except cannibalism, and World War II Allied air bombing alone, in aggregate, killed more civilians than all the people who died in the Civil War. Sherman only scared people and destroyed property, and mostly public property at that.

It wasn't that he, and Sheridan in the Valley weren't scary and destructive. But it just wasn't total war. The collection of grievances, carefully constructed and nursed and watered and fertilized shouldn't have the evil Yankees as the bad guys. The leadership that led them over the cliff, who miscalculated the odds, misread their opponents, failed diplomatically, failed militarily, failed politically should be the targets. Who know who should hang Jeff Davis from a sour apple tree? The Army of Northern Virginia.
 

Viper21

Sergeant Major
Joined
Jul 4, 2016
Messages
2,417
Location
Rockbridge County, Virginia
#19
Sherman only scared people and destroyed property, and mostly public property at that...

...It wasn't that he, and Sheridan in the Valley weren't scary and destructive. But it just wasn't total war.
So it's misguided to have disdain for the people who destroyed more property, killed more livestock, stole more possessions, displaced more civilians, than anyone ever on American soil..?

The Shenandoah Valley was a wasteland after Sheridan was done with it. Imagine having your property stolen, your food taken, or eaten. Your livestock taken, or eaten, & your house burned. I suppose you'd be okay with it cause, it was your politicians fault.

It took generations for many areas in the South to recover from the destruction, & pillaging that took place.
 

Joshism

Sergeant Major
Joined
Apr 30, 2012
Messages
2,079
Location
Jupiter, FL
#20
the federals invaded last month and have taken all our horses . . . the federals killed Uncle Buck at Shiloh . . . the carpet-baggers are taking our farm and Yankee cavalry is helping them do it.
I think the bolded part is the important part. Yes, some Southerners had more personally perceived slights, especially in a place like Missouri. But the "Yankee atrocities" were mostly imagined and the Yankees themselves far and away. Whole states were barely touched for much of the war. Soldiers from Texas, Alabama, and Florida weren't fighting at Shiloh and Manassas over what the Yankees had done back in their home states.

That bond has been handed from generation to generation.
Why has it and why should it be? Your generation didn't experience it. You haven't personally met anyone who experienced it (I mean the ACW specifically, not warfare in general).

If the South is right to perpetually play forward it's collective trauma then all the other countries around the world who keep fresh old wounds and have waged wars, civil or international, through the 20th century over grudges, grievances, and traumas often much more real (and in some cases more recent) than what white Southerners experienced.

The Serbs are still upset about losing a battle 700 years ago because that loss resulted in over 500 years of foreign occupation. The South wraps their identity around their failed four-year rebellion, after which they regained full legal and political rights within a decade and were able to perpetuate local white rule for another century.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.



Fewer ads. Lots of American Civil War content!
JOIN NOW: REGISTER HERE!
Top