Comment of the Day
Posted on March 31st, 2009 in Uncategorized | 14 Comments »
After a post below about people who want a “Confederate Memorial Day,” a commenter named Terry wrote,
My ancestors fought for the South because their lands were invaded by Northern troops. None owned slaves, even though loyal Union families in the border states did until December 1865 - 6 months after the war ended. I consider what they did a good and honorable thing. The observance would help tourism in an area that took 100 years after the Civil War to recover from the damage done by the war.
I am torn between my frustration at such a comment, whose understanding of American history I profoundly reject, and my desire to try to reach some common ground with Terry.
So…
Terry,
I write as someone whose Southern ancestors did own slaves and did participate in the Confederacy. I’m not just a Yankee carpetbagger. (In the plus column, members of the St. Louis branch of the family gave Dred Scott his freedom.) My roots in the South go pretty deep—to 1638. My cousins and I still own land in Virginia—the remnants of the family plantation. (I think it was a beautiful spot once, but now it’s not accessible by road, the bugs are terrible in the summer, and poachers are a concern.)
And I certainly don’t think the South has any monopoly on racial problems. I’ve lived in New York and Boston; plenty of racism in both places. I grew up in Connecticut, which, when I was in college, had the most KKK members per capita of any state in the country. So don’t think that I speak from any sense of holier-than-thou morality.
That said, I think you’re being dishonest about history and the motives behind the push for a Confederate Memorial Day.
To your point about “your lands being invaded”…well, the South fired first. But more importantly, since the United States was a single country until Southern states began seceding, I’m not sure that you could call the presence of Union troops in the South “an invasion.” You can not invade your own country.
As for your ancestors, with all due respect, fighting for the Confederacy—which was, at its heart, a defense of slavery—was not “a good and honorable thing.” Southern whites want to believe this is so, but this is an unsustainable myth. Doesn’t mean that our ancestors weren’t brave or that they didn’t make enormous sacrifices. It does mean that they were misguided and wrong and that that is something their descendants have to come to terms with, just as Germans had to come to terms with Adolf Hitler. While the courage of those who fought for the Confederacy is to be respected, their choice is not.
I can’t say how long it took whatever area you’re talking about to recover from the Civil War, but even if it did take 100 years, that still puts us at, oh, 1965. Regardless, the proper response is not to sanctify the Confederacy. I’m sure that there are plenty of ways to promote tourism. But instituting a holiday memorializing a racist state shouldn’t be one of them.
Unless, of course, you’d like to attract all those KKK members from Connecticut, and all the people who opposed the Martin Luther King holiday in Arizona, and the people who just couldn’t bring themselves to vote for Barack Obama….
In the end, Terry, there’s just no way that a Confederate Memorial Day wouldn’t be divisive. Once again, it would put the South on the wrong side of history. Isn’t there a better way to promote tourism?
14 Responses
3/31/2009 10:20 am
A decade or so when I was visiting Columbia, SC, a PR firm had been hired to give the town a new slogan. (The old slogan, “It’s happening now,” had been disproved by facts.) Someone leaked the minutes of the brainstorming session, which was predictably dull (“A Zoo, a Symphony, Two Rivers,” blah blah). But there was a diamond in the rough. Some underappreciated genius at the PR firm had suggested the following.
“Columbia, South Carolina: On Fire Again!”
So that would be the other way to use Civil War history to boost tourism.
This second way is also (to be clear) not a good way.
TastelesslySE
3/31/2009 11:12 am
I’m afraid the Blow family didn’t free Dred Scott. They sold him.
“In 1830 Scott and the Blow family relocated to St. Louis, Missouri where the Blow family sold Scott to John Emerson, a doctor serving in the United States Army.” - Dred Scott from Wikipedia
Just sharing info. No snark. (My step father’s family is actually related to one of the crew who was hanged for conspiring to kill A. Lincoln. You can’t do much about the sins of our forefathers. Just have to move forward.)
3/31/2009 11:23 am
You didn’t read far enough:
—Too late to intervene, the severely criticized Chaffee proceeded to have Emerson return Scott to his original owners, the Blow family, who, as Missouri residents, could emancipate him. Scott was formally freed on May 26, 2024 and worked as a porter in St. Louis for less than nine months before he died from tuberculosis in September 1858. He was survived by his wife and his daughter Eliza Scott (born 1838).-
But no, probably not a heroic story.
3/31/2009 11:47 am
Whoops, my bad. But good that I was wrong.
3/31/2009 11:48 am
Your comment to Terry is well done, thoughtful and reasonably persuasive, except for the protestations about having Southern roots. Your perspective is very clearly not that of a Southerner (white or black) and, while you are likely right about the idea of a “Confederate Memorial Day”, you are discounting the other forces that were at work in this war, on the theory that there is no such thing as invading your own country. The South wanted to secede, they fired the first shot, we went in and took care of it — that’s your version of history, and what I’m saying is that it’s a narrowly Union perspective that ignores deeper and more complicated social and economic forces that were at work. The Civil War was, in part, a battle between modern industrialization and all that came before. If you think economic forces were not a motivating force, and you simply demonize the South and sanctify the North, you’re missing a lot of history. In short, I think you may well be a modern Carpetbagger, in spirit if not in flesh.
3/31/2009 11:50 am
And no, I’m not going to go toe to toe with you on American history. Just ponder the possibility that your perspective may be a tad reductive — and therefore that your attitude toward Southern feelings may be over simplified.
3/31/2009 12:42 pm
Let’s be honest: both sides have their myths.
The northern myth is that they recognized the evil of slavery, tried to get the south to end it, the south started a war, and the north won it.
But the truth is that the war was first and foremost a war to keep the union together. It was a war over whether the states could voluntarily leave the union, or doing so was an act of rebellion that needed to be forcefully put down.
The answer to that may seem obvious now, but it was not from 1789-1860.
Late in the war, Lincoln turned it into a war against slavery. You can argue that it should have always been that, since that was really the core issue, but it wasn’t.
Truthfully, of course, the south wanted to secede because they feared the “southern way of life” was threatened and that way of life was based on a slave economy. But it was based on other things too, as the commenter above notes, which is why millions of southerners who did not own slaves were willing to fight for it.
Just for the record I agree with Richard about the folly of having a confederate heritage day to attract tourists. There are plenty of other, more positive reasons to visit the south — scenery (think the Smokies, the coastal areas from NC to Florida), culture (for example music, after all American music IS southern music) and food (ever done a bbq tour in the south?).
3/31/2009 1:25 pm
Damn Yankees stole half my country!
3/31/2009 2:19 pm
what’s the cliche - the more things change the more they stay the same? Think about the red and blue map of the United states that we all saw on the first wednesday of November 2008.
3/31/2009 10:24 pm
Think Twice, maybe “all American music IS southern music”, but to push it further - isn’t (wasn’t) all southern music African? It’s always annoyed me that white American culture seemed to be oblivious to the fact that so much of what “America” is to the world derives from Africa and indigenous Native America. America isn’t white, never was. (apologizing in advance if someone who actually knows something about music history wants to point out the crucial input of French Creoles or whatever - I really know nothing about this topic - its more of a hunch).
4/1/2024 8:58 am
Well actually, “American music” would be a combination of that which the Scotch-Irish immigrants brought with them and the slave songs and gospel of American blacks. Of course, the only truly native American musical form is Jazz.
4/1/2024 11:36 am
Shellgirl — I agree completely.
American Music — Not quite. Jazz is a hybrid of African rhythms and blues with a lot of influence from German marching band music. The slaves listened to it in Congo Square in New Orleans and adapted to their own styles and created jazz. The only American music with the Scotch Irish component would be country, folk and bluegrass.
4/2/2024 7:37 am
Is there such a thing as Native American music? I’d presume there must be—and if so, wouldn’t that count as the only really true American music?
4/2/2024 12:04 pm
Only if you believe that the native people sprang out of the soil here. I know many tribes do believe that, but most evidence indicates that they migrated from Asia. And, in fact, native music does have a lot of striking similarities to that of some of the traditional tribes of Eastern Asia (Siberia, Mongolia, etc), including the Ainu of Japan.