And great question: "What do you think?" I don't know. And I speak, for what it's worth, as a Virginian who was deeply involved in the question of national civic memory of slavery, here in Virginia, at the time you've recalled--back when then-Gov. McDonnell perped his colossal Civil-War-memory blundering.
(And I still am involved. In fact, I submitted a fiery letter to the twin Tidewater dailies about the issue of the two bills, though my main thing remains what appears at the end here.)
That blundering also included Fort Monroe, which was then nearing the end of its six-year wind-down time before being transfered from the Army to Virginia. Even today, and certainly then, Virginia's governor was, as a practical matter, the most important person on the planet for Fort Monroe's future. Governors of both parties have sided with the overdevelopment faction.
Fort Monroe matters for lots of American history reasons, but the main one is that it saw both the 1619 (as Point Comfort) start of British North American slavery and the 1861 start of U.S. slavery's wartime crumbling.
Kevin, you mentioned "Virginia’s commitment to telling the full story of the Civil War, including slavery." The slavery part is more true now than it was before the sesquicentennial. But if Sean Wilentz and others are right about the central importance of hundreds of thousands of slavery escapees in emancipation's wartime political evolution, there was an even bigger asterisk in Virginia when Gov. McDonnell was making the overdevelopment plans concrete.
But things were less clear then, because somewhat worse then was the unintentional, unrecognized, unconscious but nevertheless pernicious systemic racism of near obliviousness to that central importance. The late Ira Berlin spoke of the "hand of authority" and the "the hand of common people" in that evolution. In 2010, the hand of authority was simply assumed to have been the only factor. It was hardly even a question.
But nothing is more certainly written in the book of fate than that Americans will esteem the Civil War's multitudes of freedom-striving, emancipation-forcing slavery escapees.
Thanks for the response. Let me be clear that my comment was specifically in reference to the work of the committee and the meeting that I attended early on. Running the show was the historian James "Bud" Robertson, who was tapped to head the centennial committee by Kennedy after things fell apart early on in that commemoration. Robertson is a pretty traditional and conservative historian but he was laser focused on not making the same mistakes of the 1960s. No celebratory battle reenactments and slavery and the lives of the enslaved had to be front and center. I was mildly shocked by this and I think in the end Virginia did an excellent job of holding to that goal.
Thanks. It does seem to me true that in Virginia and elsewhere, sesquicentennial celebrations and commemorations and civic discussion did much better than had the centennial concerning the Civil War's actual central issue. I was old enough in the early 60s that I remember that the centennial was all--and pretty much only--battles and generals and valor. And in the end, it is not just Virginia that has blundered anyway concerning memory of, and esteem for, the multitudes that I cited. A fundamental problem in the national memory's failure with post-Army Fort Monroe is that it's a national failure. Virginia had the main but not the only control of the process of deciding the disposition of what should be, and still could be, advocated as a World Heritage Site. But that would first require common-sense recognition of the hand of common people alongside the hand of authority in emancipation's evolution. By the way, I had a friend whose Fort Monroe advocacy was largely inspired by his reverence for Civil War memory, which in turn had been inspired by his favorite professor at Virginia Tech: Professor Robertson.
I can only imagine how angry the UDC would be if the Governor's office refused to veto this. I sincerely hope that the UDC gets what is coming to it after all this time of obfuscation and distortion.
The history of the organization certainly bears that out, but they haven't had much of any impact in recent years. Either way, they certainly don't deserve tax-exempt status.
I have. Certainly, parts of the Confederacy were more diverse than others, but its emphasis today by Confederate heritage organizations is all about trying to get the Confederacy right with slavery and white supremacy.
I certainly hope that Youngkin has the stones to allow both into law. The more pushback those organizations and the Lost Cause ideology get the more likely they will ultimately go away.
Great topic.
And great question: "What do you think?" I don't know. And I speak, for what it's worth, as a Virginian who was deeply involved in the question of national civic memory of slavery, here in Virginia, at the time you've recalled--back when then-Gov. McDonnell perped his colossal Civil-War-memory blundering.
(And I still am involved. In fact, I submitted a fiery letter to the twin Tidewater dailies about the issue of the two bills, though my main thing remains what appears at the end here.)
That blundering also included Fort Monroe, which was then nearing the end of its six-year wind-down time before being transfered from the Army to Virginia. Even today, and certainly then, Virginia's governor was, as a practical matter, the most important person on the planet for Fort Monroe's future. Governors of both parties have sided with the overdevelopment faction.
Fort Monroe matters for lots of American history reasons, but the main one is that it saw both the 1619 (as Point Comfort) start of British North American slavery and the 1861 start of U.S. slavery's wartime crumbling.
Kevin, you mentioned "Virginia’s commitment to telling the full story of the Civil War, including slavery." The slavery part is more true now than it was before the sesquicentennial. But if Sean Wilentz and others are right about the central importance of hundreds of thousands of slavery escapees in emancipation's wartime political evolution, there was an even bigger asterisk in Virginia when Gov. McDonnell was making the overdevelopment plans concrete.
But things were less clear then, because somewhat worse then was the unintentional, unrecognized, unconscious but nevertheless pernicious systemic racism of near obliviousness to that central importance. The late Ira Berlin spoke of the "hand of authority" and the "the hand of common people" in that evolution. In 2010, the hand of authority was simply assumed to have been the only factor. It was hardly even a question.
But nothing is more certainly written in the book of fate than that Americans will esteem the Civil War's multitudes of freedom-striving, emancipation-forcing slavery escapees.
Just not yet.
Thanks for the response. Let me be clear that my comment was specifically in reference to the work of the committee and the meeting that I attended early on. Running the show was the historian James "Bud" Robertson, who was tapped to head the centennial committee by Kennedy after things fell apart early on in that commemoration. Robertson is a pretty traditional and conservative historian but he was laser focused on not making the same mistakes of the 1960s. No celebratory battle reenactments and slavery and the lives of the enslaved had to be front and center. I was mildly shocked by this and I think in the end Virginia did an excellent job of holding to that goal.
Thanks. It does seem to me true that in Virginia and elsewhere, sesquicentennial celebrations and commemorations and civic discussion did much better than had the centennial concerning the Civil War's actual central issue. I was old enough in the early 60s that I remember that the centennial was all--and pretty much only--battles and generals and valor. And in the end, it is not just Virginia that has blundered anyway concerning memory of, and esteem for, the multitudes that I cited. A fundamental problem in the national memory's failure with post-Army Fort Monroe is that it's a national failure. Virginia had the main but not the only control of the process of deciding the disposition of what should be, and still could be, advocated as a World Heritage Site. But that would first require common-sense recognition of the hand of common people alongside the hand of authority in emancipation's evolution. By the way, I had a friend whose Fort Monroe advocacy was largely inspired by his reverence for Civil War memory, which in turn had been inspired by his favorite professor at Virginia Tech: Professor Robertson.
I can only imagine how angry the UDC would be if the Governor's office refused to veto this. I sincerely hope that the UDC gets what is coming to it after all this time of obfuscation and distortion.
The history of the organization certainly bears that out, but they haven't had much of any impact in recent years. Either way, they certainly don't deserve tax-exempt status.
Kevin, did you discuss that "Diversity" graphic before? I seem to recall some of the identifications (besides the Black "Confederate") were bogus.
I have. Certainly, parts of the Confederacy were more diverse than others, but its emphasis today by Confederate heritage organizations is all about trying to get the Confederacy right with slavery and white supremacy.
I know. Oye. I was just trying to remember where I had read a critique of it.
Unfortunately, I am not sure when I last talked about it. I know I did on the old WordPress blog.
I certainly hope that Youngkin has the stones to allow both into law. The more pushback those organizations and the Lost Cause ideology get the more likely they will ultimately go away.