Would he comment on Hood's role in getting his troops wiped out at Franklin? (Though that might not be relevant to the placing of the monument.)
Does he think the inscription on the slab is accurate? In what way did Texas Confederates fighting in Tennessee close to the end of the war "serve their state"? (I'm one of those who think Sam Houston best served his state by trying to prevent secession and warning what it would lead to.)
Will be interested to see the course of your dicussion.
As to Youngkin, so much for his claims of moderation.
I'm confused about Juneteenth 2024. I had understood it was made a federal holiday in 2021 recognized by 37 states and several territories. I've also seen suggestions online that it is being observed on Wednesday June 19, when in fact the 19th, yesterday, was a Sunday. It would make sense to observe the holiday on Monday, June 20th, as many people do appreciate three-day weekends. I haven't seen much, if any, discussion of Juneteenth this year. A few years ago I seem to recall controversy over the status of Juneteenth as a federal holiday that has seemed conspicuous this year by its absence.
My apologies. Will be interesting to see if and how Juneteenth is or isn't observed in such a polarized election year. There was a Battle of Galveston that was far more substantial than the minor skirmish on the Rio Grande at the end of the war in the Battle of Palmetto Ranch. The timing of the Battle of Galveston, New Year's Day, 1863, coincided with the original implementation of the Emancipation Proclamation and the appointment of General Nathaniel Banks to head the Department of the Gulf in New Orleans. Galveston had been occupied by federal troops up until Confederate General Magruder's surprise assault on the federal occupying forces there. Texas regiments were available to fight in battles as far away as Tennessee and Georgia because General Banks made quite limited efforts to regain federal control of Galveston. There were ongoing efforts to occupy and control Brazos Santiago and Port Isabel at the mouth of the Rio Grande that relied on the stationing of United States Colored Troops there in numbers sufficient to maintain access to that port and didn't result in significant battles. It wasn't until the Spring of 1864 that the Red River Campaign and the Camden Expedition were mounted in an attempt to converge on Shreveport and from there push on to Fort Worth. That federal offensive failed, but was sufficient to keep the armies of Sterling Price and Kirby Smith occupied in the Trans-Mississippi and unable to provide reinforcement for Confederate armies engaged in resisting federal offensives in Tennessee and Georgia. If there were Confederate monuments in Texas they would have commemorated the Battle of Galveston for which the activities of Juneteenth in 1865 were a necessary and effective riposte. Occupation worked in New Orleans, Vicksburg, Helena, Fort Smith and Little Rock. It was not particularly suited to Texas. Juneteenth means more with the context of federal attempts to occupy Texas, the movement of the state capital from Galveston to Houston and even further inland to Austin, the development of railroads in Texas during the war and the role the border with Mexico played in the movement of contraband in the form of bales of cotton in international commerce and preservation of the slave trade. Slaves and cotton bales were Confederate currency. The dynamics of human trafficking and illegal drugs at the border today are a perpetuation of dynamics established in the Civil War. The war between Juarez and Maximillian south of the border and the issues at stake there need to be considered for a fuller understanding of the limitations of the Lost Cause narrative. The War with Mexico in 1848 was not just a North American border dispute. It was part and parcel of the 1848 Revolution on the European continent.
A maybe not too small issue involved in Governor Youngkin's vetoes favoring continued public honoring of the Confederacy and, inherently, its crimes against humanity:
Earlier in Civil War Memory, there was a suggestion that a historic ownership entanglement of the Confederate Memorial Literary Society with the American Civil War Museum in Richmond could or would mean tax problems for the museum if there were no veto. That society was reportedly targeted in the vetoed legislation.
This stuff is going to come up again. When it does--in fact, before it does--I hope there's clarification about possible effects on the museum, which in my view should not suffer unintended consequences from cessation of public honoring of the Confederacy. Thanks.
I agree. The CMLS does good work and it should be allowed to continue. Make no mistake, however, the next Democratic governor is going to sign legislation ending the UDC’s tax-exempt status and the SCV’s vanity plates.
My half century* of closely watching Virginia governors and politics is way more than enough to tell me that yes, of course, if a Democrat governor gets the chance, she (the likely case, actually) or he will absolutely take it.
But I know nothing about the CMLS. I assumed it must be similar to the UDC, or why would the vetoed legislation have targeted it? A commenter in this forum suggested, in fact stated, that because of historical ownership complexities, the American Civil War Museum expected to be affected if the legislation got through. Was that so? And if so, why wasn't (and isn't) it part of the public discussion? If the legislation recurs next winter, when Governor Youngkin will still be in office, it seems to me that the possible effect on the museum--if what was suggested in the comments here in CWM was true--will still require public attention.
- - -
- - -
* In the Fort Monroe cause in 2007, I was even the Democrat candidate for state senate for about nine days. My district contained Fort Monroe, so the incumbent was an automatic member of what is now called the Fort Monroe Authority. I instigated a front-room, not back-room, deal with the district party chairman. The Republican incumbent was a major perp of the horrendous early planning for overdeveloping Fort Monroe. I would have loved to have several months of campaign soapbox time about that. (Yes, it wouldn't have been the sole issue, but still.) No bona fide Democrat politician wanted to run against that incumbent. But a far-right candidate was to primary him--just not until after the filing deadline, which meant that the Democrats needed a candidate before the Republican candidate was known. The front-room deal was that if the nutty right-winger lost, I would remain the actual candidate. She won. So I turned the nomination over to the late John Miller, who beat her and served well in the Senate. He was a decent friend of Fort Monroe against the forces of overdevelopment, but he did not use that campaign soapbox as I would've, at that fraught moment when overdevelopment-minded Virginia politicians were deciding Fort Monroe's future.
That promises to be a wonderful conversation. One of the BOFT specialty tours is about the Lost Cause, led by Eric. When I did it, I was the only participant so we had a two hour talk covering a wide range of topics. Looking forward to hearing it.
Would he comment on Hood's role in getting his troops wiped out at Franklin? (Though that might not be relevant to the placing of the monument.)
Does he think the inscription on the slab is accurate? In what way did Texas Confederates fighting in Tennessee close to the end of the war "serve their state"? (I'm one of those who think Sam Houston best served his state by trying to prevent secession and warning what it would lead to.)
Will be interested to see the course of your dicussion.
As to Youngkin, so much for his claims of moderation.
I only saw your question after I completed my interview with Eric. I think you are going to find the conversation interesting.
I'm sure I will - and that you came up with good questions all on your own!
I'm confused about Juneteenth 2024. I had understood it was made a federal holiday in 2021 recognized by 37 states and several territories. I've also seen suggestions online that it is being observed on Wednesday June 19, when in fact the 19th, yesterday, was a Sunday. It would make sense to observe the holiday on Monday, June 20th, as many people do appreciate three-day weekends. I haven't seen much, if any, discussion of Juneteenth this year. A few years ago I seem to recall controversy over the status of Juneteenth as a federal holiday that has seemed conspicuous this year by its absence.
Hi Craig. I am not sure I understand your point. Juneteenth this year falls on a Wednesday.
My apologies. Will be interesting to see if and how Juneteenth is or isn't observed in such a polarized election year. There was a Battle of Galveston that was far more substantial than the minor skirmish on the Rio Grande at the end of the war in the Battle of Palmetto Ranch. The timing of the Battle of Galveston, New Year's Day, 1863, coincided with the original implementation of the Emancipation Proclamation and the appointment of General Nathaniel Banks to head the Department of the Gulf in New Orleans. Galveston had been occupied by federal troops up until Confederate General Magruder's surprise assault on the federal occupying forces there. Texas regiments were available to fight in battles as far away as Tennessee and Georgia because General Banks made quite limited efforts to regain federal control of Galveston. There were ongoing efforts to occupy and control Brazos Santiago and Port Isabel at the mouth of the Rio Grande that relied on the stationing of United States Colored Troops there in numbers sufficient to maintain access to that port and didn't result in significant battles. It wasn't until the Spring of 1864 that the Red River Campaign and the Camden Expedition were mounted in an attempt to converge on Shreveport and from there push on to Fort Worth. That federal offensive failed, but was sufficient to keep the armies of Sterling Price and Kirby Smith occupied in the Trans-Mississippi and unable to provide reinforcement for Confederate armies engaged in resisting federal offensives in Tennessee and Georgia. If there were Confederate monuments in Texas they would have commemorated the Battle of Galveston for which the activities of Juneteenth in 1865 were a necessary and effective riposte. Occupation worked in New Orleans, Vicksburg, Helena, Fort Smith and Little Rock. It was not particularly suited to Texas. Juneteenth means more with the context of federal attempts to occupy Texas, the movement of the state capital from Galveston to Houston and even further inland to Austin, the development of railroads in Texas during the war and the role the border with Mexico played in the movement of contraband in the form of bales of cotton in international commerce and preservation of the slave trade. Slaves and cotton bales were Confederate currency. The dynamics of human trafficking and illegal drugs at the border today are a perpetuation of dynamics established in the Civil War. The war between Juarez and Maximillian south of the border and the issues at stake there need to be considered for a fuller understanding of the limitations of the Lost Cause narrative. The War with Mexico in 1848 was not just a North American border dispute. It was part and parcel of the 1848 Revolution on the European continent.
A maybe not too small issue involved in Governor Youngkin's vetoes favoring continued public honoring of the Confederacy and, inherently, its crimes against humanity:
Earlier in Civil War Memory, there was a suggestion that a historic ownership entanglement of the Confederate Memorial Literary Society with the American Civil War Museum in Richmond could or would mean tax problems for the museum if there were no veto. That society was reportedly targeted in the vetoed legislation.
This stuff is going to come up again. When it does--in fact, before it does--I hope there's clarification about possible effects on the museum, which in my view should not suffer unintended consequences from cessation of public honoring of the Confederacy. Thanks.
I agree. The CMLS does good work and it should be allowed to continue. Make no mistake, however, the next Democratic governor is going to sign legislation ending the UDC’s tax-exempt status and the SCV’s vanity plates.
My half century* of closely watching Virginia governors and politics is way more than enough to tell me that yes, of course, if a Democrat governor gets the chance, she (the likely case, actually) or he will absolutely take it.
But I know nothing about the CMLS. I assumed it must be similar to the UDC, or why would the vetoed legislation have targeted it? A commenter in this forum suggested, in fact stated, that because of historical ownership complexities, the American Civil War Museum expected to be affected if the legislation got through. Was that so? And if so, why wasn't (and isn't) it part of the public discussion? If the legislation recurs next winter, when Governor Youngkin will still be in office, it seems to me that the possible effect on the museum--if what was suggested in the comments here in CWM was true--will still require public attention.
- - -
- - -
* In the Fort Monroe cause in 2007, I was even the Democrat candidate for state senate for about nine days. My district contained Fort Monroe, so the incumbent was an automatic member of what is now called the Fort Monroe Authority. I instigated a front-room, not back-room, deal with the district party chairman. The Republican incumbent was a major perp of the horrendous early planning for overdeveloping Fort Monroe. I would have loved to have several months of campaign soapbox time about that. (Yes, it wouldn't have been the sole issue, but still.) No bona fide Democrat politician wanted to run against that incumbent. But a far-right candidate was to primary him--just not until after the filing deadline, which meant that the Democrats needed a candidate before the Republican candidate was known. The front-room deal was that if the nutty right-winger lost, I would remain the actual candidate. She won. So I turned the nomination over to the late John Miller, who beat her and served well in the Senate. He was a decent friend of Fort Monroe against the forces of overdevelopment, but he did not use that campaign soapbox as I would've, at that fraught moment when overdevelopment-minded Virginia politicians were deciding Fort Monroe's future.
That promises to be a wonderful conversation. One of the BOFT specialty tours is about the Lost Cause, led by Eric. When I did it, I was the only participant so we had a two hour talk covering a wide range of topics. Looking forward to hearing it.
You were very lucky to have Eric all to your self for two hours. He is an excellent guide.
I agree. Maybe even better than hanging with you in Gettysburg 😉