George Mason University's
History News Network
Dear President Obama: Please Don't Honor the Arlington Confederate Monument
By Edward Sebesta and James Loewen
This letter was written by Edward Sebesta and James Loewen and signed by the scholars listed below.
May 18, 2009

President Barack H. Obama
The White House
1600 Pennsylvania Avenue NW
Washington, DC 20500

Dear President Obama:

Since the administration of Woodrow Wilson, presidents have sent annually a wreath to the Arlington Confederate Monument. Prior to the administration of George H. W. Bush, this was done on or near the birthday of Jefferson Davis.  Starting with George H.W. Bush, it has been done on Memorial Day.

We ask you to not send a wreath or some other commemorative token to the Arlington Confederate Monument during your administration or after.

There are several reasons as to why this monument, a product of the Nadir in American race relations, should not be honored, and we list and explain them in this letter.

The monument was intended to legitimize secession and the principles of the Confederacy and glorify the Confederacy. It isn’t just a remembrance of the dead. The speeches at its ground-breaking and dedication defended and held up as glorious the Confederacy and the ideas behind it and stated that the monument was to these ideals as well as the dead. It was also intended as a symbol of white nationalism, portrayed in opposition to the multiracial democracy of Reconstruction, and a celebration of the re-establishment of white supremacy in the former slave states by former Confederate soldiers. In its design it also tells wrong history, boasting fourteen shields with the coat of arms of fourteen states.  Thus it claims that Missouri, Kentucky, and Maryland were part of the Confederacy. They weren’t.

The monument was given to the Federal Government by the United Daughters of the Confederacy (UDC), which raised the funds to erect it. The UDC’s reasons for the monument are instructive. In the address of Mrs. Daisy McLaurin Stevens, President General of the United Daughters of the Confederacy at its dedication, she makes clear that the monument is to glorify the ideas of the Confederacy:

Great ideas and righteous ideas are alone immortal. The eternal years of God are theirs. The ideas our heroes cherished were and are beneficial as they are everlasting. These were living then; they are living to-day and shall live to-morrow and work the betterment of mankind. Thus our heroes are of those who, though dead, still toil for man through the arms and brains of those their examples have inspired and quickened to nobler things.

Since the United Daughters of the Confederacy upheld in multiple publications in the early 20th Century that the Ku Klux Klan was the heroic effort of the Confederate soldier, we have an idea what the “noble past” and “ideas our heroes cherished” were. Of course one of these “ideas” was secession to preserve the institution of African slavery.

Likewise General Bennett H. Young, Commander-in-Chief of the United Confederate Veterans also defends the cause of the Confederate soldier, the neo-Confederate cause of their descendants, and defends secession in his speech as follows:

At this hour I represent the survivors of the Southern army. Though this Confederate monument is erected on Federal ground, which makes it unusual and remarkable, yet the men from whom I hold commission would only have me come without apologies or regrets from the past. Those for whom I speak gave the best they had to their land and country. They spared no sacrifice and no privation to win for the Southland national independence.

I am sure I shall not offend the proprieties of either the hour of the occasion when I say that we still glory in the records of our beloved and immortal dead. The dead for whom this monument stands sponsor died for what they believed to be right. Their surviving comrades and their children still believe that that for which they suffered and laid down their lives was just; that their premises in the Civil War were according to our Constitution….

The sword said the South was wrong, but the sword is not necessarily guided by conscience or reason. The power of numbers and the longest guns cannot destroy principle nor obliterate truth. Right lives forever, it survives battles, failures, conflicts, and death. There is no human power, however mighty, that can in the end annihilate truth.

In fact, most white Southerners in 1914 agreed that both slavery and secession were wrong.  Not Young.  No apologies.  No regrets -- despite the historical record of Confederate soldiers having committed racial atrocities of massacring surrendered African American soldiers on at least eight occasions.

Hilary A. Herbert, Chairman of the Executive Committee of the Arlington Confederate Monument Association, makes it clear that the monument stands for the legitimacy of secession, in opposition to Reconstruction, and for white supremacy. In his History of The Arlington Confederate Monument at Arlington, Virginia, he writes:

In 1867 the seceding States were subjected to the horrors of Congressional Reconstruction, but in a few years American manhood had triumphed; Anglo-Saxon civilization had been saved; local self-government under the Constitution had been restored; ex-Confederates were serving the National Government, and true patriots, North and South, were addressing themselves to the noble task of restoring fraternal feeling between the sections.

Within a generation after Congressional Reconstruction, American historians condemned it ….  as “a crime against civilization,” and public opinion seems to have approved the verdict.

Herbert goes on to refer to the Confederate soldiers who joined the Ku Klux Klan and Red Shirts as being heroes for restoring white supremacy and overthrowing Reconstruction, referring to “the soldiers who fought the battles of the Confederacy and … by their courage and devotion during the two decades after the war, were saviors of Anglo-Saxon civilization in their section.”

The monument itself has a Latin motto, “Victrix causea Diis placuit, sed victa Catoni.” It translates, “The winning cause pleased the Gods, but the losing cause pleased Cato.” This is a classical reference which to the cognoscenti implies that Lincoln was a despot and the Union cause unjust; Cato, the stoic believer in “freedom,” would have sided with the Confederacy.

The Arlington Confederate Monument is a denial of the wrong committed against African Americans by slave owners, Confederates, and neo-Confederates, through the monument’s denial of slavery as the cause of secession and its holding up of Confederates as heroes.  This implies that the humanity of Africans and African Americans is of no significance.

Today, the monument gives encouragement to the modern neo-Confederate movement and provides a rallying point for them. The modern neo-Confederate movement interprets it as vindicating the Confederacy and the principles and ideas of the Confederacy and their neo-Confederate ideas. The presidential wreath enhances the prestige of these neo-Confederate events.

Fr. Alister C. Anderson, as Chaplain-in-Chief of the Sons of Confederate Veterans (SCV), at the 85th anniversary of the dedication of the Arlington Confederate Monument in 1999, gave a lengthy speech explaining its meaning. His understanding of the Arlington Confederate Monument can be said to be fairly representative of modern neo-Confederate opinion.

Anderson believes that the Civil War was a holy war between an orthodox Christian nation (the South), a view widespread in the neo-Confederate movement, and what he feels was an un-Christian and heretical North, as he explained in a series of articles in the Confederate Veteran as Chaplain-in-Chief of the SCV. This explains some of the passages of his speech at the Arlington Confederate Monument.  In his speech Anderson explains regarding the monument:

… It reveals and concentrates in beautiful, rugged bronze nearly every idea that a true Southern historian, theologian, statesman, and patriotic citizen could present about the religion, culture, morals, economics, and politics of a civilization from out of which the Confederate States of America evolved. The monument captures the ideals and accomplishments that still existed at the end of the War for Southern Independence. Thank God it does not depict the beginning of the Reconstruction Era, the most disgusting and destructive period in United States history from which the South has never really recovered.

Anderson goes on to note Washington’s presence in bronze:

It depicts George Washington on horseback with the Latin inscription DEO VINDICE, which means, “God Vindicates.” Southerners believed under the Constitution they had the right to secede if they were being harmed by a tyrannical government.

To Anderson, as to other neo-Confederates today, the Arlington Monument exists to glorify the ideas of the Confederacy, which he sees as the ideas of the neo-Confederacy.

Anderson goes on to explain, correctly, the meaning of the main inscription on the monument, “Victrix causea Diis placuit, sed victa Catoni.”  This is a line from a poem Pharasalia by the Roman poet Lucan, used to represent Lincoln as a tyrant and the North as tyrannical.  Fr. Anderson explains:

Victix causa, “the winning cause (or side)”, referring to Julius Caesar’s inordinate ambition and his lust for total power and control, is compared with President Lincoln and the Federal Government’s desire and power to crush and destroy the South. Next we read diis placuit which translates “pleased the gods.” In this context, gods are with a small “g” and refer to the gods of mythology; the gods of money, power, war and domination, greed, hate, lust and ambition. Next we come to the noble climax of this quotation, sed victa cantoni which translates “but the losing side (or cause) pleased Cato”. Here Lucan, the poet, refers to Pompey’s fight to retain the old conservative, traditional republican government of Rome. Even though Pompey was defeated by Caesar’s greater military power, his defeat, nevertheless, pleased the noble Cato. And here, of course, Cato represents the noble aims of the Southern Confederacy. The South fought politically to maintain the Constitution which had guided her safely for eighty-seven years. She merely wanted to be left alone and governed by it. The aggression-minded totalitarian Northern government would not permit that and so she pleased the gods of abolitionism, transcendentalism, utopianism, state centralism, universalism, rationalism and a host of other “isms.”

Anderson here denounces abolition, the anti-slavery movement that ultimately led the United States of America out of the moral evil of slavery, as an evil itself.

Sending a wreath to the Arlington Confederate Memorial Monument enhances the prestige of the United Daughters of the Confederacy, an organization with a long history of racism from praising the Ku Klux Klan in the early part of the 20th century, to publishing articles against the Civil Rights movement in the Civil Rights Era, to promoting neo-Confederacy today. When the president of the United States of America enhances the prestige of this monument and of the United Daughters of the Confederacy, he strengthens a group working to set back America’s progress in race relations. 

Finally, in 2009, the main speaker for the annual observance at the Arlington Confederate Memorial is Ron Maxwell, director of the movie “Gods and Generals,” whose neo-Confederate meaning he made clear in an interview in Southern Partisan. He also has written expressing his fear of Hispanic immigration leading to civil war in the notoriously racist Chronicles magazine, the organ of the ultra-right Rockford Foundation.

For the president of the United States of America to send a wreath to the monument this year would contribute to providing Ron Maxwell with a more prestigious setting for his speech. It would aid and abet the ongoing use of presidential prestige and this monument for their neo-Confederate agenda.

We ask you to break this chain of racism stretching back to Woodrow Wilson, and not send a wreath or other token of esteem to the Arlington Confederate Monument. This monument should not be elevated in prestige above other monuments by a presidential wreath.

Sincerely yours,

Last NameFirst NameInstitutionBiographical Information (for identification purposes only)
AlexanderShawn LeighLangston Hughes Center, Kansas UniversityAssistant Professor African and African American Studies, Interim Director, Langston Hughes Center
AttieJeanieLong Island UniversityAssociate Professor of History
AyersBillUniversity of Illinois, ChicagoProfessor of Education
BarberDavidUniversity of Tennessee, MartinAssistant Professor of History
BlakelyAllisonBoston UniversityProfessor of European and Comparative History; George and Joyce Wein Professor of African American Studies.
BridgesRoger D.Rutherford .B. Hayes Presidential CenterExecutive Director Emeritus
BrownJoshuaThe City University of New YorkExecutive Director American Social History Project/ Center for Media and Learning, Professor of History, Ph.D. Program in History, The Graduate Center.
BurtonOrville VernonCoastal Carolina UniversityBurroughs Distinguished Professor of Southern History and Culture at Coastal Carolina University. Formerly he was Director of the Institute for Computing in the Humanities, Arts, and Social Sciences (ICHASS) at the University of Illinois, where he is Professor of History, African American Studies, and Sociology. He is also a Senior Research Scientist at the National Center for Supercomputing Applications (NCSA), where he is Associate Director of Humanities and Social Sciences. In addition, he is Executive Director of the College of Charleston’s Program in the Carolina Lowcountry and Atlantic World.
ChristieThomasLincoln Public Schools, Lincoln, NebraskaMulticultural Administrator
DavisSimoneMt. Holyoke CollegeProfessor of English
EwertGeorge Former Director of the Museum of Mobile
FarleyJonathanInstitute fur Algebra Johannes Kepler Universitat LinzTeaching and Research Fellow
FellmanGordonBrandeis UniversityProfessor of Sociology
FinkLeonUniversity of Illinois, ChicagoDistinguished Professor. Director of WRGUW (Graduate Concentration in the History of Work, Race, and Gender in the Urban World)
Department of History
FinkelmanPaulAlbany Law SchoolPresident William McKinley Distinguished Professor of Law
GundakerGreyCollege of William & MaryProfessor of Anthropology
HagueEuanDePaul University, ChicagoProfessor of Cultural Geography, editor of "Neo-Confederacy: A Critical Introduction."
Hayes-BautistaDavid ESchool of Medicine, UCLAAuthor of numerous articles on  Calfornia Hispanic history
HicksDavidVirginia TechAssociate Professor of History and Social Science Education
JacksonKenneth T.Columbia University, NYCProfessor of History and Social Sciences
JenningsMatt H.Macon State CollegeStudent
KatznelsonIraColumbia University, NYCRuggles Professor of Political Science and History
KennedyRoger G.National Museum of American History (ret.), National Park Service (ret.)Director Emeritus, National Museum of American History, Former Director, National Park Service
KeyBarclayWestern Illinois UniversityAssistant Professor of African-American History
KeyDeWayneMars Hill Bible School, Florence, Alabama 
KnappPeterVillanova UniversityProfessor of Sociology
LeibJonathanOld Dominion UniversityAssociate Professor of Geography
LoewenJamesUniv. of VermontProfessor Emeritus of Sociology, Univ. of Vermont; author of "Lies My Teacher Told Me," "Lies Across America," "Sundown Towns," etc.
LoveDavid, A.CommentatorColumnist at www.blackcommentator.com
McPhersonJamesPrinceton UniversityProfessor of History
MillerWillaim LeeUniv. of Virginia 
MitchellDonSyracuse UniversityProfessor of Geography
MizellLindaUniversity of Colorado at BoulderAssistant Professor, School of Education
MurrayPaulSiena CollegeProfessor of Sociology
NietoSoniaUniversity of Massachusetts at AmherstProfessor Emerita, Language, Literary, and Culture
OwensDeirdre CooperUniversity of MississippiAssistant Professor of History
ParentiMichael On advisory boards of Independent Progressive Politics Network, Education Without Borders, the Jasenovic Foundation, New Political Science, and Nature, Society and Thought. Author of many books in political science.
PhillipsMichaelCollin College, Plano, TexasHistory Professor,  Author of "White Metropolis" 
RoismanFlorence W.Indiana University School of LawWilliam F. Harvey Professor of Law
SchmeeckleMariaIllinois State UniversityAssociate Professor of Sociology
SebestaEdward H.Independent researcher. Editor of "Neo-Confederacy: A Critical Introduction," University of Texas Press. 
ShabazzAmilcarUniversity of Massachusetts at AmherstProfessor and Chair of the W.E.B. DuBois Department of Afro-American Studies
SinhaManishaUniversity of Massachusetts at AmherstAssociate Professor of Afro-American Studies and History
SleeterChristineCalifornia State University Monterey BayProfessor Emerita,  College of Professional Studies
SowaMaureenBristol Community CollegeProfessor of History
WebsterGerald RaymondUniversity of WyomingChair, Department of Geography
WhiteGeorge, Jr.York College, CUNYAssistant Professor of History
WienerJon University of California, Irvine; The Nation MagazineContributing Editor at "The Nation"; Professor of History at UC-Irvine. 

 

Author: 
Edward Sebesta and James Loewen
Bio: 
This letter was written by Edward Sebesta and James Loewen and signed by the scholars listed below.

Symbol of national unity

It is actually a multi-racial monument -- it includes a sculpture of a black Confederate soldier.

The monument's presence in the foremost national cemetery is a symbol of peace and national unity. We need to set a good example for places in the world where internal strife is going on.

Re: Honoring Confederate Memorial

Obama will observe Confederate Memorial tradition despite petition
Deseret News
http://www.deseretnews.com/article/1,5143,705306170,00.html

South was ruled by the north | 9:23 p.m. May 23, 2009

The biggest statement Obama can make is that the actions of the Confederacy aren't as simplistic as some would have us believe. It is a historical fact that the south didn't rebel over slavery. That was the least of their concerns. The issues leading to civil war were economic, and states rights.

If we were to think of this in modern terms.

It would be like a President being elected based on the platform that he is going to teach some states a lesson by imposing higher taxes on them while at the same time lowering taxes in other states.

Breckenridge got 72 electoral votes compared to Abe Lincoln's 180 and Abraham Lincoln won didn't win a single southern state yet he won the election.

Breckenridge won 11 states all of which were in the South while Lincoln won 18 all of which were in the north except for California and Oregon in the west but even if Breckenridge had won Oregon, California and the other southern states won by Stephen Douglas and Bell he would still have had only 127 electoral votes compared to Lincoln's 173.

So the north decided every election.

Bill Ayer's criticizes Confederacy

I found Edward Sebesta and James Loewen's letter demonizing the Confederacy biased, historically inaccurate and full of gross generalizations.

However, a degree of comic relief was provided upon viewing the list of scholarly signatories. In particular, I noted Bill Ayers, Professor of Education at the University of Illinois, Chicago.

Could this be the same Bill Ayers who was a leader of the Weather Underground, an organization that espoused terrorism and had members convicted of participating in the bombing of Federal buildings?

From a historical perspective, Mr. Ayers apparently takes issue with the South exercising its right of secession, while embracing the radical and extremist views of the Weather Underground.

Re: Honoring Confederate Memorial

Sic Semper Tyrannis, Mr. Loewen, stems from a proposal of George Mason at the Virginia Convention in 1776. He proposed the Latin phrase as a befitting motto for Virginia. Subsequently, it was incorporated into the Commonwealth of Virginia's seal.

If one wishes to be viewed as an historical scholar, one must research and state facts accurately. Clearly, espousing the Booth connection as the source of the phrase is disingenuous or indicative of insufficient research. .


psuedo-intellectual thugs

James W. Loewen and Edward Sebesta vye for the brown shirt award of 2009. James McPherson must be in his dotage to lend his otherwise respectable name to this collection of far left loonies.
I'm not a particular fan of Ron Maxwell's movies, but did these pseudo-intellectual thugs actually watch Gettysburg and Gods & Generals? If they had, they would have seen and heard the most articulate pro-Union and anti-slavery arguments made in any film in the past one hundred years of movies. Of course, this group of close-minded so-called historians can't get past his sympathetic and historically accurate presentation of Southern officers like Robert E Lee and Thomas "Stonewall" Jackson.
Maxwell must be accustomed to ad-hominem attacks, but the chilling effect this might have on young artists, young historians and young filmmakers cannot go unchallenged. Shame on the signers of this letter for seeking to diminish free speech and shame on James McPherson for agreeing to wear this brown shirt of infamy.

What would Lincoln do?

For all the fuss surrounding this petition, it is interesting to ask "Would Lincoln himself send the wreath?" I don't believe any serious historian would answer anything other than "yes," regardless of their personal feelings about the monument. That almost a century's worth of Lincoln's successors have indeed done just that is reason enough in itself to ignore this petition and consider it a counterproductive attempt at provocation for the sake of making a largely meaningless political statement.

The signatures on this petition also display bad judgment on the part of some of the more noteworthy signatories. A simple review of the names quickly reveals that they vary widely in stature, and more than a few of them are *not* credentialed scholars at all. That this latter designation includes the letter's principle co-author, Edward Sebesta, is particularly telling.

Actual scholars such as McPherson, Finkelman, and Miller have damaged their own credibility and displayed a lapse in judgment by lending their names to this effort, quite probably under the mistaken perception that Loewen's name gave it credibility. Unfortunately for McPherson, this is not the first such lapse in judgment involving the likes of Sebesta. Several years ago he appeared on a radio interview with Sebesta and caused a minor row by endorsing the latter's condemnation of the Confederate museum in Richmond, which holds one of the most highly-regarded Civil War artifact collections in the nation.

One would hope that McPherson had learned from his past encounters with Sebesta. Evidently not, and now a handful of otherwise reputable Civil War scholars have repeated this mistake and drawn themselves into association with Bill Ayers for added measure. It all goes to show why serious historians should steer clear of these silly attempts to make a political statement.

Re: Confederates Not the Rebels

Perhaps you can explain why the US Military Academy at West Point was using A VIEW OF THE CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA by William Rawle, LL.D.as a textbook. The book advances the belief that secession was perfectly legal. Rawle was considered one of the foremost Constitutional scholars of the time.
Is it any wonder that so many Confederate Officers, who attended West Point, believed their primary loyalty was to their State?

Confederate Vets

Confederate Soldier/Vietnam Vet

Oh fair, young men with thoughts now stilled,
your farms are gone, and we're now skilled
in changing channels on TV,
in teaching kid's black history;
of killing children before birth,
unwanted children have no worth.
Depopulation is their goal,
we call it funded birth control.

Oh fair young men, who gave their life,
a man takes man to be his wife
and prayer should never have a part
in cleaning up a child's heart.
We're taxed on this and taxed on that
and never question all the fat
that goes to countries we should corn,
but fill their barns with wheat and corn.

Oh fair, young men that went to war,
if we were brave we would restore
the jobs for us, take back the con,
bring back our factories from Taiwan.
tomatoes here would overflow,
not ship them in from Mexico.
We'd have our farmers grow them fresh,
and pass a law to speak english.

Oh fair, young men who gave their all,
who had the courage, faced the call
to fight for victory in their land,
be unafraid to take a stand.
They've gathered people in their group,
given land to U.N. troop.
Our Constitution is denied,
it's U.N. law that's now applied.

Oh fair, young men who paid the cost,
we're going down, perhaps are lost,
but still we stretch out friendly hands
to Europe, China, other lands.
We feed their people, pay their bills,
let them in with all their ills;
A Christian nation? Very odd
our schools can not talk of God.

Oh fair, young men, we fast forget
though Pearl Harbour smolders yet,
and sells us things we used to make;
our enemies by no mistake
will hold the knife up to our throat,
and as we die, they smile and gloat,
they pick our pockets and pretend
that we need them and their our friend.

Oh fair, young men, how could you know
just how far down that we could go,
drugs and porn, and casual sex,
MTV and Malcolm X.
The U.N. flag is flying high
and we can't wait to spend and buy
some junky trinket from Hong Kong,
while schools teach that you were wrong.
Lindalee

Re: There is Nothing About the Confederacy to Honor

Have you ever studied tariffs? When asked, "Why not let the South go in peace? Lincoln replied, "I can't let them go. Who would pay for the gov't?" Lincoln himself said, "People everywhere, being inclined and having the power, have the right to rise up and shake off the existing gov't, and form a new one that suits them better." Chief Justice Chase siad after the war, "If you bring these leaders to trial it will condemn the north, for by the Constitution, secession is not rebellion." John Quincy Adams said, "If the day should ever come when the affections of the people of these states shall be aliented from each other, the bands of political associations will not long hold together parties no longer attracted by the magnetism of conciliated interests and kindly sympathies, and far better will it be for the people of the disunited states to part in friendship from each other, than to be held together by constraint." And your god Lincoln said, "I will say then that I am not, nor ever have been in favor of bringing about in any way the social or political equality of the white and black races." He also said, "I have no purpose, directly or indirectly to interfere with the institution of slavery." I had kin fighting for our beloved Southland, which was INVADED, and yet not one owned a slave.

Re: Monument

It should be noted that while not all signatories of this petition support the removal of historical monuments, a significant number of them do and may see this petition as a stepping stone toward that purpose

Mr. Sebesta, the primary co-author of the letter, is among them and has publicly advocated the removal of Confederate monuments on his website. It is therefore not unreasonable to suggest that he is using this occasion to advance an agenda of monument removal, even though other signatories may not.

Mr. Sebesta's position is particularly unfortunate because if one steps past the politics of the Confederate statue at Arlington however briefly, and considers it as a piece of artwork and history in itself, it clearly should not be subjected to such a campaign. It is among the more aesthetically appealing statues at Arlington. It was also sculpted by Moses Ezekiel, a historically significant American artist with many famous works to his name in the United States and in Europe. To remove it, and of that I have no doubt for it to be the ultimate intent of Sebesta and some other signatories, would be a greater tragedy for that reason alone than anything to be accomplished by the political message you hope to send by this petition.

Historians indeed!

Is this the gang of historians that couldn’t shoot straight? Here’s what I was able to find in less than ten minutes on Google:
"Gods and Generals is the greatest Civil War movie I have ever seen, and I have seen them all.”
James I. Robertson, Jr. Alumni Distinguished Professor in History, Virginia Tech
http://www.history.vt.edu/Robertson/

On Maxwell’s own website is this quote from a longer essay entitled
Beyond the Myths:

“The starry cross of the Confederacy is at the center of a roiling controversy. Protesting crowds want it removed from State Capitols, vociferous groups insist on keeping the flag flying. The Saint Andrew's cross embedded in this emblem can be seen as a symbol for the cross roads and cross currents of American history. To many Americans, both black and white, the flag is like a dagger to the heart, a painful reminder of the worst of America's past injustices and persisting racial prejudices. To others, mostly but not all white, the flag inspires pride in a heroic past, it stirs, even in Lincoln's phrase, the "mystic chords of memory" for gallant and fearless warriors fighting for their independence. Each side finds it difficult to appreciate the genuine feelings of their counterparts or to be able to reconcile the one viewpoint with the other. Few other icons inspire such passionate and mutually exclusive responses.”

http://www.ronmaxwell.com/beyondmyths.html

Then there’s this quote from an interview in the Washington Times:
“…I assiduously keep my own politics out of the work. Now I am who I am, and my deep philosophical view of life is going to come through in every choice I make - how I write the script, what I choose to emphasize, how I cast it, shoot it, edit it. I don't deny that. But there is nothing in this film that is overtly manipulated. That's just not the role of the filmmaker.
The movies that have moved me the most, and helped shaped me as a human being are movies which pose questions. The motion picture is a terribly awkward and inadequate medium in which to answer questions. As soon as you try to answer questions, especially the big questions of life, it makes us uncomfortable as an audience. It veers into agitprop and propaganda very quickly.
The great films pose questions. You can pose little questions, you can pose big questions. This film poses the big questions. It is a meditation about patriotism and the sense of duty: What do you love enough to defend? To fight for? To kill for? These are big questions, questions being faced by our country and our fellow citizens right now, in a different context.
I try to keep contemporary politics out of it, because contemporary politics has nothing to do with the people in this story. The people in this story live in the 1860s, not in the year 2003, and it is my responsibility as a filmmaker to go where they live, not take them where we live. That would be a complete waste of everybody's time and money.
I must take the audience into their moral universe. And then, paradoxically, once you are in that conflict in the 1860s, understanding them in that place where they live, then we understand ourselves in the modern era better. If all I tried to do was make those 19th-century people stick figures to represent us, we wouldn't believe any of it…”
Complete interview at:
http://www.ronmaxwell.com/timesinterview.html

Then, in searching for references to his position on illegal immigration, I found this April, 2006 open letter to President Bush:

“…Working as I do in Civil War history, I have had to explore the ugly depths of the American institution of slavery, and have been privileged to work alongside civil rights leaders and specialists in African-American history. For this reason it troubles me that we appear today to be importing a second virtual slave class of low-wage workers who are hired to replace or displace less-educated or privileged Americans -- including the very descendants of American slaves.
I agree with you that "no child should be left behind." But that is precisely what immigration advocates are doing to the children of America's working class -- by flooding the market with workers from a desperately poor country, who depress the wages of high school and even college graduates…”

Complete op-ed at:

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2006/apr/05/20060405-091814-1458r/

Yeah, this guy sounds like a real neo-confederate. Get the tar and feathers!
Any Junior High School student could do a better job of research than James W. Loewen and Edward Sebesta.
Their intentions are obvious and dishonorable. They don’t want anyone to know Maxwell’s actual statements or positions – all the easier to malign, libel and discredit. Luckily for America and for our collective memory, Maxwell’s movies will continue to enlighten and entertain beyond the day when no one even remembers the insignificant signers of this small and mean spirited letter.





Re: Honoring Diversity

There are many first-hand accounts of the intentional burning of individual homes in South Carolina and particularly in Columbia at the hands of Sherman's troops. Sherman made it clear he intended to wreak vengence on South Carolina and particularly Columbia, where the secession convention met. He specifically had no compunction about wanting to make sure his troops burned the church where the convention was held. More than half of the city was burned to the ground. There are also many accounts of assults by the yankee troops on people of the state, both white and black. The modern day revisionists tend to overlook these facts today.

Re: Shame on the "educated"

My letter to President Obama:

Dear President Obama:

I am pleasantly suprised that you have had the courage and good sense to pay no attention to the message from the group of self-appointed "academics" urging you to cease the long-standing tradition of honoring the Arlington Confederate Monument. You have done the honorable thing and rightly honored those soldiers who so bravely fought against great odds to defend their homeland against invading armies intent on their destruction. For this, I and many others thank you.

Ben Boyd

Re: My Opinion

Your points are well taken. Washington, Jefferson and B. Franklin were all slave owners and hypocrites. They beleived in segregation and practiced ethnic cleansing. In 1857 Dred Scott settled the question about the status of Negroes: they are not citizens of the US or any other country and have no human rights any more than sheep, horses or mosquitoes. So, Jefferson Davis and the CSA had a point, and so do you.
Now in 2009 we have to decide what kind of country we are today and going forward. Who are we? Thats the real question. Do we honor the Confederacy because its ideology was, as you correctly pointed out, rooted in the founding of the republic as a nation built on slavery and ethnic cleansing?
Hitler was elected Chancellor in 1932 by a majority of German voters and most Germans supported Fascism and a racial supremacist ideology. So, should Germans be proud of their heritage and honor their WWII dead today? No, they do not, they are eternally ashamed of their actions and the swastika and "Heil Hitler" are illegal in Germany today. What would the world think if the current German Chancellor laid a wreath honoring Klaus Barbie, Goebells, Hitler, the SS and the millions of German soldiers who enslaved and murdered millions and brought the utter destruction of Germany while they "carried out orders" and "defended the Fatherland"? Is that who Germans want to be?
Americans need to learn their own history and ask themselves the same difficult questions.

Re: Honoring Confederate Memorial

"It is a historical fact that the south didn't rebel over slavery. That was the least of their concerns."

Well, no it isn't. I have read EVERY document by EVERY convention, legislature, etc., from EVERY state that seceded. They are ALL ABOUT SLAVERY. To be sure, several (SC, MS, TX, etc.) do complain about states' rights. Did you notice that? They COMPLAIN about states' rights. They oppose states' rights, and they tell you which states and which rights upset them.

Re: Honoring Confederate Memorial

So it appears that you believe Federal laws are merely suggestions, and that it is within the purview of the individual States to pick and chose which laws they follow. However, any suggestion that the South had a legitimate basis upon which to secede is somehow anathema to your views

I find it interesting that the north's culpability is completely excused, considering it was the northern shipping interests that made fortunes engaging in the despicable International slave trade?

Re: Scholars?

Uh, Josephine, you do know this is a public forum, and you just made a death threat under your name.
This kind of ridiculous hyperbole has no place in a scholarly discussion.

Re: My Opinion

Since this is a website devoted to history, I think we should uphold some minimal standards regarding facts (analysis is a different matter). Hitler was not elected Chancellor in 1932--President Hindenberg appointed him Chancellor on January 30, 1933 after the conservatives and the NSDAP won a majority of seats in the Reichstag. Hitler was later elected with a majority after such chicanery as the burning of the Reichstag in February, 1933 and the banning of all communist and socialist political parties in the wake of the fire.

Re: Honoring Confederate Memorial

This long thread reminds me of the truth of that good Mississippi novelist who wrote that "The past is not dead. It's not even past."



Re: Honoring Confederate Memorial

Except that the "northern culpability" in the international slave trade was moot after 1808--the year it became illegal for anyone to import a person into the United States for the purpose of slavery.
I find it fascinating that the southern sympathizers wave the bloody shirt of "states rights" every time this issue arises, yet they fail to enumerate what those "rights" were. Mainly because they do not want to mention that one of those rights was the right to own slaves. Let's not get too hung up on picking and choosing which rights to honor and which to disallow.

Re: My Opinion

Yes you are correct, I was wrong about the details of Hitler's path to power.

But my larger point is the same.

Re: My Opinion

This is indeed why we should study history--do develop critical thinking skills through the examination of evidence. As a European historian, I have almost an entire shelf devoted to the re-examinations of 20th century German history. If I was an Americanist, I would hazard to guess my resources on the Civil War would dwarf that.
I think we are best served by open and rational examination, not by banning the material or screaming invectives at one another. However, a big part of this story is, as you rightly pointed out, the "identity" factor. And we can see by the extended commentary on this letter, this issue is a very hot forge.

to honor or to dishonor?

Dear professors.
Why stop at half measures?
Let’s dishonor them all.

Let’s see. All American Patriots were traitors to England, many were slave traders and many were slave owners. Let’s dig up their graves, grind up their bones and throw them to the winds. In 1789 the French Jacobins did this to their despicable ancestors, re-using grave-stones as paving stones in Paris.

The Washington monument? Tear it down. Washington owned slaves. Think of the stones that could be quarried from that Obelisk? Maybe enough to build a monument to Political Correctness. We could call it the altar to Loewen-Behold.

The Jefferson monument? Tear it down. Jefferson owned slaves.

Monticello, Montpelier, Ashlawn and The Hermitage? Sell the houses and their contents at auction. Their occupants were all slave owners. Better still, burn them to the ground. Why tolerate any lingering domestic monuments to a slave-owning past?

Statues to Pilgrims and Puritans in Massachusetts and Connecticut? Smash them to pieces. Didn’t the New England colonists perpetuate genocide against the Native Americans who were the prior occupants of that land?

The Maine Monument? Come on. All historians know that was a trumped up incident to start a war with Spain. Tear it down.

The VietNam Memorial? Some of the older signers of this sanctimonious letter were reviling US servicemen and women as they returned from Vietnam in the ‘60s and ‘70s. Weren’t these veterans called baby killers and war criminals? Mr. Ayers actually plotted to kill American soldiers at the Pentagon. Tell us the truth. What would you really like to see done to that memorial?

What a state of consternation this bunch of petty tyrants must be in on this Memorial Day! President Obama kept with tradition, kept with compassion and reconciliation, kept faith with Lincoln’s better angels of our nature and did indeed have a wreath lain at the memorial to the Confederate dead.

The signers of this creepy grave desecrating letter have marked only themselves as the ones deserving of no wreaths, no eulogies and no fond remembrance.








Comments removed

It's a shame that so many comments are removed. The scholars who signed this petition seem to fall into the trap so amny uneducated people fall into. They seem to believe that the Civil war was all about slavery. In fact, had this civil war really been fought about slavery, President Lincoln would have issued his Emancipation Proclamation prior to, or immediately after the declaration of war. That proclamation was delayed for many months, then only issued as a means to weaken the South.

It is a shame that educators are trapped in the same sort of ignorance as the common people.

Aside from their position on slavery, the real objectives of the Confederacy were right, and noble. That one single issue, slavery, tarnished the rest of their stance, but it certainly did not poison their cause.

State's rights were NEVER meant to be subject to the whims of a federal government.

As for slavery - it was on the way out, anyway, due to economic reasons. The very same reasons that ended slavery in the rest of the world. Slavery could and would have been abolished in the south within another decade or two, with or without the civil war.

I am proud that Obama observed the tradition of honoring the Confederate memorial. I am just as proud that he sent a wreath to the memorial honoring blacks who fought in the Civil War. I'll differ with Obama on other matters, but here, Obama demonstrated his superiority to all the scholars who signed the petition.

Re: There is Nothing About the Confederacy to Honor

Linda Lee, can you give me a source for that Lincoln quote? I can only find it on some neo-confederate and white supremacist web sites. It does not appear in Lincoln's Collected Works that I can see. I think it is made up.

Re: Honoring Confederate Memorial

None of the state secession declarations complain about the rights of states. James Loewen is wrong again.

Some of the State declarations complain the Northern states had violated Article IV, Section 2 of the Constitution. Well, the Northern states did violate it. That is just a fact.

But no one, other than James Loewen, thinks that the states have the right to violate the Constitution.

Get a copy of it. Read it. Especially the Tenth Amendment. Then you can figure out what rights the states reserved and what rights they did not.

So where does that leave us? One could argue that South Carolina left the Union because the federal government did not enforce the fugitive slave clause.

But that argument would imply that the people of the Palmettto State were awfully stupid. After all, even if they were getting only 25% enforcement inside the Union, outside of it they would have gotten exactly zero.

Re: Honoring Confederate Memorial

It's not a perfect world and at the time there was indeed a right to own slaves. One can argue the morality of the issue but at the time, slavery was legal.

In a contemporary context, one could similarly argue the morality of the Roe vs Wade decision and the Right to Choose. However, under existing law, abortion is legal.

If a society deems moral objections to a specific law as it exists, then it is incumbent on that society to see that the law is changed accordingly by due process.



Re: Lincoln's racism

It is odd that those who use terms such as "friend of black people" fail to realize their own racism by the simplistic use of the "classification" based on race. What is alo odd is the failure of context of history as it was, and the players on THAT stage characters in the drama of the time. Without this understanding, there is no history, onle a political rant of the now, and the discussion is made meaningless.

Re: Bill Ayer's criticizes Confederacy

I believe it must be the same Mr. Ayers, the self-confessed but now "retired" terrorist. Who else would admit to that name? One wonders if Mr. Ayers has tenure, and what the criteria for tenure at his institution "of higher learning," must encompass. It is odd that Mr. Ayers' view of Confederate history has any place in any discussion that should be rational.

Thank You Mr. President

Well, President Obama ignored this request (prank). Thank you Mr. President.

Re: There is Nothing About the Confederacy to Honor

which quote? I do believe I have them all. What is a neo-Confederate?

Re: There is Nothing About the Confederacy to Honor

Let the South go? Lincoln to the Virginia delegation March 1861

Any people, anywhere, being inclined and having the power, have the right to rise up and shake off the existing gov't.......US Rep Lincoln Congressional Speech 12-1-48

I will say then... Speech in Charleston, Ill Sept 18, 1858

I have no purpose.... First Inaugral Adress

Re: There is Nothing About the Confederacy to Honor

Sorry for not being clear. I meant this quote:

When asked, "Why not let the South go in peace? Lincoln replied, "I can't let them go. Who would pay for the gov't?"

Re: There is Nothing About the Confederacy to Honor

Ah, I see that you identify that as Lincoln to the Virginia Delegation--but where is it printed? What is the original primary source document where the quote is found?

Re: There is Nothing About the Confederacy to Honor

How about some more Lincoln quotes?

"But for your race there could not be war. It is better for us both, therefore, to be seperated." Aug 14, 1862

"Such separation must be effected by colonization, to transfer the African to his native clime, and we shall find a way to do it." June 26, 1857

People who know no history claim to be offended by the Southern Battle Flag, yet cross their heart and pledge alligience to a flag that flew over slavery for 400 years.

Re: Bill Ayer's criticizes Confederacy

Perhaps Ayers, being an old friend of the president, thought he could call in a favor. Wonder how the Rev. Wright feels about it? Silly me, he damns the whole country.

Re: Lincoln's racism

"Friend of black people," is racism? It is the blacks that continually segregate themselves and change their names every few years. Let's see, we still have the United NEGRO College Fund, Miss BLACK America, BLACK Entertainment Television, African American this and that. And the worst one of all,their rap songs that call themselves NIGGERS and HOES. Why is it the white man is always racist?

Re: Lincoln's racism

Why silly me, I forgot the NAAC(as in colored)P. Talk about isolating and segregating one's self. And we are the racist??

Re: There is Nothing About the Confederacy to Honor

The trouble with your quotes, Linda, is that it is difficult to tell which are real and which are made up. The "let the south" go quote is clearly made up.

Re: There is Nothing About the Confederacy to Honor

I can't make you believe the truth. Here's another good one;
"The Southern Confederacy will not employ our ships or buy our goods. What is our shipping without it? Literally nothing....It is very clear that the South gains by this process, and we lose. No---we MUST NOT "let the South go." ----Union Democrat , Manchester, NH, February 19, 1861

"

Re: Lincoln's racism


If we are to condemn Lincoln for racism then shouldn't we do the same for Jefferson Davis, Robert Lee, and Stonewall Jackson? Not to mention Thomas Jefferson, James Monroe, and God knows how many others.

Re: Scholars?

Ms. Bass, please explain exactly what you meant.

Who cares what Sebesta and Loewen think?

Sebesta can stay home and draw all the "anti neo confederate pro democracy" flags he wants.

http://templeofdemocracy.com/

Few thinking people will worship in his "Temple of Democracy".

And Loewen can continue to run around the country looking for more "Sundown Towns" and for racism under every rock he comes across.

Frankly, we do not care. Obama sent the wreath but had he had chosen not to send it, life would have still gone on for those of us who consider that monument to be important.

Nothing that malcontents like these two and their army of "signers" ever do will change that.

In the interest of brevity on this board I'll simply give y'all a link and let my "letter to the agitators" speak for itself.

http://shnv.blogspot.com/2009/06/letter-about-and-to-agitators-and-their.html



Re: Scholars?

Regarding Ms. Bass's comment, are any of you "scholars" familiar with the term "metaphor?" Or, are you just playing childish games?