The SCV's new museum

And this is a good point. Whatever emphasis or de-emphasis the history is given, a lot of Civil War artifacts will be collected, preserved and displayed, and that's a good thing.
Hopefully. A lot of Confederate Museums gathered up lots of artifacts in the late nineteenth and early 20th centuries only to have them deteriorate due to lack of funds. The cost of restoring a flag can exceed that of a good old boy new pickup truck.
 
Museums are not propaganda institutions.

Or at least they are not supposed to be.

They have no authority, right or responsibility here.

Speaking as not just a CW buff and frequent museum visitor, but also a museum professional (but speaking only on my behalf, NOT for my employer):

The Smithsonian is considered one of the most professional museum organizations in the US.

There is a difference between having an emphasis (women, children, minorities, Confederate soldiers) and being biased. A museum can focus on African-Americans without being biased towards them or distorting facts about them.

There could be a market for a museum about Confederate soldiers that shows their lives, equipment, experiences, and stories. A well-researched and honest institution could grapple with questions including soldiers from non-slaveowning families, mulattos passing as whites, and Black Confederates (soldiers or otherwise) while still acknowledging the bravery of Southern soldiers and the hardships they faced.

The problem is not the idea, but the organization. The SCV gives me no reason to believe they will run a museum as more than a Lost Cause shrine, including perpetuating the myths that the war was not about slavery and that there were Black Confederate soldiers. Maybe they'll surprise me, but I would bet against it.
 
Last edited:
When this topic first came up, the first thing I thought of was The Museum of the Confederacy in Richmond, Va. From the Encyclopedia Virginia comes this opening statement:

The Museum of the Confederacy opened in the former Confederate capital of Richmond in 1896 as the Confederate Museum. One of Richmond's oldest museums, it is the only institution in Virginia that began as a Confederate shrine and transformed itself into a modern history museum. The museum was a preservation effort on two levels: it rescued from destruction the former Confederate executive mansion and displayed in the mansion's rooms the artifacts—"relics" as they were called in the 1890s—of Confederate soldiers and civilians from the American Civil War (1861–1865) and the postwar Lost Cause era

The Washington Post adds this:

By the centennial anniversary of the Civil War, the museum's governing board determined that it wanted to see the museum evolve from a shrine to a more modern museum. In 1963, the CMLS hired its first museum professional as the executive director, and in 1970, changed the name of the institution to "The Museum of the Confederacy." Visitors peaked at 91,000 per year in the early 1990s but were down to around 51,000 in the early 2000s.Tucker. "Swept Away By History". Washington Post.

I thought it clever to make a comparison to how the Museum of the Confederacy began its life, to how it exists today with the proposal of the new SCV museum. Indeed, whatever artifacts that will go into the new museum will thankfully be preserved and perhaps it will undergo the same growth, evolutions, and reflections as time goes by, so that ultimately, it will accomplish what any museum hopes to do: preserve the relics of the past and represent history.

EDIT: it seems that my idea is not original: Kevin Levin has submitted a full-length article on this very topic for The Daily Beast. Stay tuned.
Kevin Levin
With the death of the Civil War generation, our collective memory gradually became more detached and academic. Something personal was lost in that transformation, but the new perspective was much more conducive to understanding the war’s complexity. Only in the last few decades have Americans been willing to deal with the tough questions of race and slavery and their roles in shaping not only the war but the short- and long-term consequences of the conflict. These explorations would have been unthinkable among the Civil War generation.

A good rationale can be that the proposed, hypothetical SCV museum will preserve a historiography that is disappearing. A display of how history was was viewed. An artifact in and of itself. Surely a commendable effort at no public expense. A curiosity of a time gone with the wind. A thing of gray and glory while all the public museums deal with all the complicated complexity.
 
Or at least they are not supposed to be.



Speaking as not just a CW buff and frequent museum visitor, but also a museum professional (but speaking only on my behalf, NOT for my employer) the Smithsonian is considered one of the most professional museum organizations in the US.

There is a difference between having an emphasis (women, children, minorities, Confederate soldiers) and being biased. A museum can focus on African-Americans without being biased towards them or distorting facts about them.

There could be a market for a museum about Confederate soldiers that shows their lives, equipment, experiences, and stories. A well-researched and honest institution could grapple with questions including soldiers from non-slaveowning families, mulattos passing as whites, and the question of black Confederate soldiers while still acknowledging the bravery of Southern soldiers and the hardships they faced.

The problem is not the idea, but the organization. The SCV gives me no reason to belueve they will run a museum as more than a Lost Cause shrine, including perpetuating the myths that the war was not about slavery and that there were Black Confederate soldiers. Maybe they'll surprise me, but I would bet against it.

Good points. However they have the rights paid for in Union blood to do so. One of the things forgotten about free speech is that it drags the black and gray out into the public arena for all to see and comment on. Truth comes from this. The SCV is evolving however slowly and complaining. In my childhood, a batch of SCV folks dressed up, firing cannons and muskets in salutes speaking fancy speeches standing around the grave of a black man respecting his sacrifice to the cause as a black confederate would be unthinkable insanity. Yet it is happening. I personally have never recovered from the shock when the Southern Baptist Convention elected a African American to head the convention. Evolution is at work here. Sometimes slow sometimes not.
 
Be careful. They may have found that lost gold!! :giggle::smile coffee:
I'd work for pieces of silver.
800_gwmzeum8vfy8okphrntx.jpg
 
Last edited:
This seems to be poor logic. Does the Smithsonian critique all museums for historical accuracy. Is thatbin their charter. Does every Government run museum have this responsibility to travel the country and check the accuracy of art museus, train museums, military museums. This is crazy.

They have no authority, right or responsibility here.

Yes, it is crazy but this country is headed into an intellect-numbing maelstrom where the politically correct thought of the moment determines “historical accuracy” with no dissent tolerated.
 
Hopefully. A lot of Confederate Museums gathered up lots of artifacts in the late nineteenth and early 20th centuries only to have them deteriorate due to lack of funds. The cost of restoring a flag can exceed that of a good old boy new pickup truck.

The North Carolina Museum of History has had an remarble record of Confederate flag restoration. So far as I know, there has been no threats from a would be Commisar of Museum Historical Accuracy to put a stop to that worth while enterprise.
 
The North Carolina Museum of History has had an remarkable record of Confederate flag restoration. So far as I know, there has been no threats from a would be Commissar of Museum Historical Accuracy to put a stop to that worth while enterprise.


The SCV has a commendable record on mobilizing funds to preserve historical stuff. The Commissar remarks reminds me of a book from my library.

images?q=tbn:ANd9GcRzA9-8l1h6bF7ubaPw3vfXRPrbr9MHmzaw90RXZtz6INP5SykU.jpg
 
Learn about professions. Those at the top of the profession have a responsibility due to their leadership role to stand up for the standards of the profession.

The Smithsonian would appear to disagree with you.

http://www.smithsonianbooks.com/store/museum-studies/museum-governance-mission-ethics-policy/

http://www.smithsonianbooks.com/sto...primer-managing-museum-collections-third-edi/

I thought I was done with this thread but I just have to say that I went to those references and neither one says anything about critiquing other people's museums. In fact, they're just brief descriptions of two books that appear to be about how to run one's own institution. Neither one of them is written or published by the Smithsonian; just sold by them. Thus, its disingenuous to imply that the books make the case that the Smithsonian believes it one of their missions to critique other museums.

I still think the Smithsonian should just stay out of it and that includes posting negative articles or links to such on their web site which I consider tacit approval and pretty much the same as the Smithsonian saying it themselves. As was pointed out, I don't see them critiquing other museums and, as I also pointed out way back, critiquing others isn't in their mission statement.

In the end I'm not losing any sleep over any of this but your argument on this aspect (i.e. not if the SCV presents accurate history) isn't convincing.
 
Last edited:
Hasn't this thread gotten to be a little ridiculous?? I mean, seriously, this is what we do? I deal with tourists and interested folks from across the country every day who just want to learn, and they would be disgusted with what has transpired here. With that, I'm out.
 
Hasn't this thread gotten to be a little ridiculous?? I mean, seriously, this is what we do? I deal with tourists and interested folks from across the country every day who just want to learn, and they would be disgusted with what has transpired here. With that, I'm out.

This site is not for the average tourist. It is more like a biker bar, where the bar keep maintains order among the patrons. There are quiet side rooms to visit.
 
Or at least they are not supposed to be.



Speaking as not just a CW buff and frequent museum visitor, but also a museum professional (but speaking only on my behalf, NOT for my employer) the Smithsonian is considered one of the most professional museum organizations in the US.

There is a difference between having an emphasis (women, children, minorities, Confederate soldiers) and being biased. A museum can focus on African-Americans without being biased towards them or distorting facts about them.

There could be a market for a museum about Confederate soldiers that shows their lives, equipment, experiences, and stories. A well-researched and honest institution could grapple with questions including soldiers from non-slaveowning families, mulattos passing as whites, and the question of black Confederate soldiers while still acknowledging the bravery of Southern soldiers and the hardships they faced.

The problem is not the idea, but the organization. The SCV gives me no reason to belueve they will run a museum as more than a Lost Cause shrine, including perpetuating the myths that the war was not about slavery and that there were Black Confederate soldiers. Maybe they'll surprise me, but I would bet against it.

I am not totally up on the charter and views of scv so i dont know what they would display or the verbage that would accompany it. I would hope it would be balanced to some degree but also fill the holes where they think that some exist. A museum to me, and i have enjoyed my many visits to the Smithsonian, i grew up 50 miles south of it, shows history and the like but also is there to stir interest and interest stirs thought and study as this sight and its many knowledgeable contributors do. But the idea that those at the top are obliged to police the bottom feeders is garbage. Harvard is supposedly at the top but i dare say they would not hold a candle to Hillsdale College in the area of the Founding and its principles. They are polar opposites in their leanings. One has to be a propagandist but who decides that is not Yale or Cornell or Berkeley.

Totally agree that a non biased display can be achieved in museums, just not sure how often it is but then that is where the interest and further study comes in.

How about we all give them a chance to lay a brick before we assume the worst. Of course i dont believe you have assumed the worst here.

Edited for spelling
 
Last edited:
I haven't read it, Sounds like a good alternative read to William Hesseltine's Lincoln and the War Governors or Thomas DiLorenzo's The Real Lincoln.

I don't read historical fiction by economists. Their grip on tangible reality is questionable enough in their field, much less in another one.

I do have the companion book
336488.jpg
\
 
I thought I was done with this thread but I just have to say that I went to those references and neither one says anything about critiquing other people's museums. In fact, they're just brief descriptions of two books that appear to be about how to run one's own institution. Neither one of them is written or published by the Smithsonian; just sold by them. Thus, its disingenuous to imply that the books make the case that the Smithsonian believes it one of their missions to critique other museums.

I still think the Smithsonian should just stay out of it and that includes posting negative articles or links to such on their web site which I consider tacit approval and pretty much the same as the Smithsonian saying it themselves. As was pointed out, I don't see them critiquing other museums and, as I also pointed out way back, critiquing others isn't in their mission statement.

In the end I'm not losing any sleep over any of this but your argument on this aspect (i.e. not if the SCV presents accurate history) isn't convincing.

The two books are written by someone who worked for the Smithsonian and it shows the Smithsonian sees it has a responsibility to promulgate information to help others run museums in a professional manner. There's more to professional responsibility than simply identifying lapses.

But I commend you on clicking on the links John.
 
The two books are written by someone who worked for the Smithsonian and it shows the Smithsonian sees it has a responsibility to promulgate information to help others run museums in a professional manner. There's more to professional responsibility than simply identifying lapses.

But I commend you on clicking on the links John.

Indeed, but is it not an error to apply professional standards to the SCV museum when no one in authority has claimed professional status for the future hypothetical museum?
 
No, facts matter but the fact that the Smithsonian says it does this or that does in no way diminish the fact that they are not the museum police, nor do they have responsibility in fact to go out and police up the smaller museums. Based on the idea that the top professional is the expert and has the responsibility to police or dictate to the rest is the whole problem with the progressive agenda from times past to present.

Harvard and Yale have no more right or responsibility to police up the smaller colleges than does a museum. It is often those who cant do who end up in academia trying to fix the rest of us. Theory is not application nor achievement.

So the point is let the Smithsonian police itself and turn its attention to fixing Dorothy's 300,000.00 shoes and the free market which is allowing and funding it will police any future SCV museum. We can all write a review when and if the doors open.
 
Back
Top