The Rout of the Confederate Flag

Cross posted from Civil Warriors



As surely you already know, in the wake of the murder of nine worshipers at Emanuel African Methodist Episcopal Church in Charleston, South Carolina, a petition was circulated demanding the removal of a Confederate battle flag from the grounds of the South Carolina state house. It quickly generated a massive number of signatures and a national ground swell of pressure arose for the state government to do precisely that. This story is already well-covered on Kevin Levin's Civil War Memory blog, so I won't rehearse the details any further.


Just for the record, I fully support the removal. The battle flag represents an army that fought for the preservation of slavery and has a long, notorious association with white racism. Yet it flies on the capitol grounds of a state whose population is 30 percent African American, most of them descendants of slaves. But this post isn't about that. It's about recent decisions to eliminate sales of the Confederate flag or to forbid its presence in certain sites. Those sites do not include National Park Service battlefields. But the park service has adopted a policy of ending sales of souvenirs in which the Confederate flag is depicted on "standalone" merchandise; that is to say, merchandise devoid of historical context. Gettysburg National Military Park has reportedly urged private businesses in Gettysburg to do the same. Tragically, this would result in the elimination of merchandise such as this:





I'm still learning about this issue, so consider this post a work in progress. It first got on my radar thanks to a Facebook status update by a friend of mine. Since his privacy settings are limited to friends, I'll quote the update without attribution:

So according to the NPS page, the only Confederate flags allowed are with permitted and approved living history events. You or I couldn't have one, you can't have one on your vehicle (I assume that means stickers too). The Lutheran Seminary at Gettysburg has banned them on the outside grounds completely.

He doesn't supply a link to the relevant NPS page, but presumably he refers to the following press release, dated June 25:

For Immediate Release: National Parks Pull Confederate Flag Sales Items

WASHINGTON – Confederate Battle Flag sales items are being removed from national park bookstores and gift shops.
“We strive to tell the complete story of America,” National Park Service Director Jonathan B. Jarvis said of the agency’s reputation for telling difficult parts of our history. “All sales items in parks are evaluated based on educational value and their connection to the park. Any stand-alone depictions of Confederate flags have no place in park stores.”
Jarvis said the murders of nine church members at Emanuel African Methodist Episcopal Church in Charleston, South Carolina, which is near Fort Sumter National Monument, galvanized a national discussion that includes symbols and relics from our nation’s past such as the Confederate Battle Flag.
“As that discussion spread across the country,” Jarvis said, “one of our largest cooperating associations, Eastern National, began to voluntarily remove from the park stores that it manages any items that depict a Confederate flag as its primary feature. I’ve asked other cooperating associations, partners and concession providers to withdraw from sale items that solely depict a Confederate flag.”
In the telling of the historical story, Confederate flags have a place in books, exhibits, reenactments, and interpretive programs. Books, DVDs, and other educational and interpretive media where the Confederate flag image is depicted in its historical context may remain as sales items as long as the image cannot be physically detached. Confederate flags include the Stainless Banner, the Third National Confederate Flag, and the Confederate Battle Flag.
Jarvis said, “All superintendents and program managers will personally evaluate which sales items fit this description, have educational value, and are appropriate for the site.”
There's also this "Statement Regarding the Confederate Flag," issued by Gettysburg National Military Park:

On June 24, National Park Service Director Jonathan B. Jarvis asked park superintendents to work with their partners and bookstore operators to voluntarily withdraw from sale items that solely depict a Confederate flag. The National Park Service press release can be found here. "We strive to tell the complete story of America," National Park Service Director Jonathan B. Jarvis said of the agency's reputation for telling difficult parts of our history. "All sales items in parks are evaluated based on educational value and their connection to the park. Any stand-alone depictions of Confederate flags have no place in park stores." Gettysburg National Military Park Superintendent Ed Clark asked the Gettysburg Foundation to consider this request. This morning, the Gettysburg Foundation President Joanne Hanley requested the bookstore operator, Event Network, to comply with the request. Hanley said, "We are committed to our partnership with the National Park Service at Gettysburg for the preservation of resources and for outstanding educational programs." Effective today, the book store at Gettysburg National Military Park's Museum &Visitor Center will no longer sell stand-alone items that solely feature the Confederate flag, including display and wearable items. This affects 11 out of 2,600 items carried in the book store. The book store continues to sells a wide variety of items that feature both the U.S. and Confederate flags, as well books, DVDs, and other educational and interpretive media where the image of the Confederate flag is depicted in its historical context.

Nota Bene: Neither release forbids that Confederate flag you have on your car bumper or even the one on the roof of your orange 1969 Dodge Charger, so I'm not sure where my friend gets the warrant for his assertion that "You or I couldn't have one, you can't have one on your vehicle (I assume that means stickers too)." However, he's correct that Gettysburg's Seminary Ridge Museum does forbid the presence of the Confederate flag on its grounds, including those of re-enactors. This has resulted in the creation of a Facebook page, "Boycott the Seminary Ridge Museum in Gettysburg.."





As of this writing (the ungodly hour of 3:34 a.m. on Sunday, June 28), the page has 243 "likes," including three of my FB friends--though oddly enough, not the friend I quote above. Maybe he just doesn't know about it yet. The museum is on the grounds of the Lutheran Seminary at Gettysburg, which created the policy--a fact of which the FB page creators were possibly ignorant (although my friend Eric Wittenberg has since clued them in). Here's the policy statement. See if you can spot the oddity within it, given all I've laid out for you above. Hint: It's the passage I bold-faced and italicized:

Until recently, the Lutheran Theological Seminary at Gettysburg has permitted the display of confederate flags in historical context, even the more controversial versions of the flag when used in historic and educational contexts. But Seminary officials have agreed that given the brutal murders of nine people in a Charleston, SC church and the identification of certain flags with supremacist movements in America make it impossible to maintain the historic context for the display of symbolism associated with those movements. The policy affirms the exhibit of the Seminary Ridge Museum and notes that the exhibit is the one space where the historical context is clear and appropriately used. (emphasis supplied) Seminary officials continue to appreciate the educational value of living history groups on campus after opening its campus for the first time to the activity in 2011. “It is good for the visitors and students of history” to open the campus for these purposes free and open to the public. But repeated events held in or near Gettysburg by groups sponsoring or threatening to use hate speech have utilized some of the symbols of the Confederate States to communicate racism and employ hate speech. More recently the brutal murders in Charleston, SC, at Emanuel AME Church, “make it impossible to maintain the necessary clear and unambiguous educational context on Seminary Ridge” said John Spangler, speaking for the Seminary. “We are forced by more recent history and current events to declare a total ban on display of confederate symbols and flags used by supremacist organizations, and that unfortunately includes the Confederate Navy Jack and the St. Andrew cross in two of the official flags of the Confederacy.” Seminary officials also note that there are numerous flags used by reenactors of the Confederate States of America which do not employ the graphic symbols in question. The policy change is as follows: As of June 18, 2015, the Lutheran Theological Seminary at Gettysburg prohibits the display (all or in part) of the flag or flags associated with the Confederate States of America containing graphic symbols utilized after the Civil War to communicate hatred and racism and resistance to civil rights legislation, including what is known as the “Confederate Battle flag, the Confederate Navy Jack, and officially designated flags of the Confederate States of America utilizing the St. Andrew cross. The only exception to this is the historical display included in exhibits of the Seminary Ridge Museum, where it is clearly interpreted in historical context. Recent events have brought to the fore extra sensitivity and sorrow on the Gettysburg campus. Two of the victims killed in Emanuel AME Church, including the Rev. Clementa Pinckney were graduates of Gettysburg Seminary’s sister school in Columbia, SC, Lutheran Theological Southern Seminary. And the alleged shooter, Daryl Roof, is also a member of a South Carolina Lutheran congregation. The Seminary remains the frequently used place for counter rallies to supremacist meetings in the area, and is committed to honoring the legacy of its most famous graduate, the Rev. Dr. Daniel Alexander Payne, a 19th Century leader in the AME tradition, forced as a young man from Charleston, SC to study theology at Gettysburg. “The problem with the symbolism in question is not about its historical use in the context of interpreting the Civil War, Spangler continued, “it is rather the subsequent used in resisting civil rights and overt and violent racism by individuals and groups that continue to this day. We simply can’t ignore this deeply disturbing and historical usage.”

I'll update this story as I learn more. Based on what I've gleaned so far, however, the news is most disconcerting. I don't know about you, but I'm going to be jonesing for my Confederate battle flag-themed souvenir crap, which I can no longer get at National Park Service stores. As for the seminary, I find its policy a breath-taking infringement of my First Amendment rights. How dare a private institution sharply restrict the use of an offensive symbol on its privately-owned grounds?

Nonsense About the Confederate Flag

From (for some bizarre reason) FoxSports, written by one Clay Travis and entitled, "On the Confederate Flag."

Travis begins:

Only in modern day America could a racist psychopath kill nine people in a Southern church and the focus turn to a flag. Only in modern day America could our nation's largest retailer, Wal Mart, announce -- to substantial applause -- that it will no longer sell merchandise featuring the Confederate flag, but will continue to permit any mentally ill nut on the street to walk into its store and buy as many guns and ammunition as he can afford.

Did I miss the part of this story... where Dylann [sic] Roof stabbed nine people to death with a flag? Because every time I think we can't get dumber on social media, we get dumber.

Here's a link to the complete opinion piece.

Possibly I missed something, but in this writer's entire rant I never saw an effort to explain why it's important that the Confederate flag continue to fly over the South Carolina state house, or any acknowledgment of the arguments concerning why it is problematic to do so. Instead it suggests--actually, damn near says outright--that the arguments are focused on eliminating usage of the Confederate flag, period.

That's absurd. I would imagine that in the vastness of the Internet you can find someone advocating making the flag illegal, but no one I have seen is doing that. I think it is a matter of simple decency to remove the flag from a government facility that is supposed to represent every citizen in South Carolina, 30 percent of whom are African Americans, in most cases the descendants of slaves.

I think it is a matter of simple First Amendment rights to use the flag in non-government contexts: Civil War re-enactors, private homes, automobiles like the General Lee, even KKK rallies. Aside from re-enactors and other highly contextualized uses, know that you're going to offend a lot of people and some of them may tell you they're offended, but that's their First Amendment right. To paraphrase the author, Just when I think opinion pieces on this issue can't get any dumber, someone proves me wrong.

State of the Field: Military History/History of the Military

These were my opening remarks at an Organization of American Historians Round Table Session (commissioned by the Program Committee) at the OAH Annual Meeting in Saint Louis back in mid-April. My fellow panelists were Christian Appy, a professor of history at the University of Massachusetts, Amherst and the author of several books, including American Reckoning: The Vietnam War and Our National Identity; Meredith Lair, an associate professor in the Department of History & Art History at George Mason University, who is the author of Armed with Abundance: Consumerism and Soldiering in the Vietnam War; and Tami Davis Biddle, Professor of History and National Security Strategy at the US Army War College, who is the author of numerous articles and book chapters, as well as Rhetoric and Reality in Air Warfare: The Evolution of British and American Ideas about Strategic Bombing, 1914-1945.

Snapshots of the current state of a given field can be among the most interesting and valuable sessions at a conference, so when I was asked to participate in this one I accepted the invitation with pleasure. But once I began preparing these brief opening remarks I found myself with questions, mostly centering on what it means to speak of the “state” of a field. It seems to me that the term can indicate at least three things. It might mean the intellectual state of the field—the questions currently being asked most urgently, new conceptual frameworks and methodologies, and so on. For younger fields it might also mean the state of the field in terms of its maturity: for instance, just how many historians are now at work within it, how many history departments regard it as important enough to justify the creation or maintenance of one or more faculty lines? Related to this second meaning is a third, the general acceptance of the field within the overall discipline.

For me at least, it’s impossible to think of the state of military history, in any of the above meanings of the term, without being reminded that military history in the United States is an unusual field. Although it has been an academic field—in the sense of having PhDs trained specifically as military historians—since about 1970, the field has always had a powerful connection with an entity outside academe, namely the American military establishment. Indeed, our flagship organization, the Society for Military History, is a descendant of the American Military Institute, created by a group of active and retired U.S. Army officers as well as interested amateurs in the early 1930’s. Over time, as civilian scholars emerged who self-identified as military historians, they more or less glommed on to the AMI until around 1990 they acquired sufficient critical mass to turn the AMI into a conventional academic organization. Under academic leadership the organization changed its name, began to hold an annual conference, and created a refereed journal, the Journal of Military History.

The emergence of the SMH more or less coincided with the beginning of my life as a professional military historian. I can tell you very briefly my impression of how the SMH has looked over time. First, it was and remains a hybrid organization. That is to say, it isn’t an exclusively academic organization but also includes members from other realms, particularly the professional military education community (PME for short)—professors and instructors from the impressive archipelago of academies, schools, and war colleges maintained by the armed forces. Candidly, I used to regret this, thinking that the utilitarian concerns of PME retarded the development of the military history field in terms of bringing it into full conversation with other civilian fields. This was exacerbated by my perception that many military historians viewed the proper concerns of the field in fairly narrow terms—chiefly as the history of military institutions, strategic policy-making, military campaigns, technology, and so on—and resisted broadening the field.

I’m no longer concerned. Perhaps my worries were always misplaced. But in any event military historians seem by and large to have adopted a “big tent” view of the field. I’ve seen this reflected, to some extent, in the articles published by the Journal of Military History; to a greater extent in the papers presented at the annual meetings of the SMH; and perhaps most of all in conversations with fellow military historians, few of whom now exhibit a “circle the wagons” mentality that a decade ago was still not uncommon. In short, in terms of intellectual health I think the field is in good shape. Military history has certain traditional or perennial subjects that will always remain important, but the field shows an openness to new subjects, questions, and conceptual frameworks comparable to other academic fields.

Moreover, I’ve come to appreciate the alliance between civilian academe and the PME community in three respects. First, historians who work in PME have every bit as much intellectual lift capacity as those who work in civilian universities. Second, the alliance tends to ground the field in a healthy way: it’s a little more difficult to indulge in novelty for the sheer sake of novelty. Finally, in most fields, newly minted PhDs have few options outside academe. And as all of us know, academic positions are becoming increasingly scarce. In contrast, PhDs who specialize in military history have four viable career tracks: civilian academe, to be sure; but also PME, public history (where there is considerable demand for expertise in military history), and national security research institutions such as RAND Corporation. I once pointed this out to a colleague of mine, who shrugged it off with a jibe about the “military-industrial-academic complex.” The colleague, safely ensconced in a tenured berth, could afford to take such a view. My students can’t. Consequently, nor can I.

As the anecdote suggests, in my view it remains a fact that military history lags badly in terms of its acceptance within academe. This does not mean that tenured radicals are driving military history out of the academy, as the National Review asserted in 2006; much less that it has been “purged” from the academy, as the Wall Street Journal declared in 2009. In fact, there are more graduate programs in military history that at any preceding time. However, I continue to find that historians outside of military history frequently look askance at the field, usually on the basis of unexamined assumptions. I don’t think that there is anything to be done about this. It is plain, however, that historians in other fields often discover research problems that have a military dimension and, consequently, find their way into ours. To me the only sensible course is to welcome such historians and assist them as cordially and effectively as we can.

I have just one more observation to make, and I’m not exactly sure what it means. At the moment I’m completing a review essay of three textbooks on American military history, which will be published in the next issue of the Journal of Military History. It’s probably significant in its own right that there are now three such textbooks on the market, for when I took my first undergraduate courses in the subject around 1980, there weren’t any. All three textbooks are very well done and, within the topics they choose to explore, have interesting commonalities and contrasts. But it was striking to me that there was a great deal of shared agreement concerning what was central to telling the story of the American military experience and conversely, that all three textbooks gave little or no space to topics that one might justifiably deem important. None, for example, gave much sustained attention to what Eisenhower called the military-industrial complex, much less the “military-industrial-academic complex.” And yet, shorn of the ominous overtones, the linkages between American business and military interests have always been a key dimension of American military history. Among other things, these help to account for the rise of the modern U.S. navy in the late nineteenth century. None of the textbooks looks much at veterans and veterans’ organizations, either. Yet the land grants given to veterans of the War for American Independence were an important aspect of western settlement during the National Period, the pensions given to Union veterans and their families accounted for 30 percent of the U.S. budget in 1900 and became a de facto foundation of the American welfare state, while the World War II GI Bill vastly expanded and democratized higher education in this country. I don’t believe for an instant that the textbook authors would contest these points or argue that they somehow lie outside the proper concerns of military history. I simply note that they are not part of the story as it is currently told. I suggest, tentatively, that this may convey something about the concerns we regard as central to American military history and those we regard as ancillary or peripheral. If so, then it may be worth asking why we make such choices, and whether we are likely to make different ones in the not too distant future.

Father Figure - Part 2

Guess Who's Coming to Dinner (1967; dir. Stanley Kramer)

John Prentice (Sidney Poitier), a distinguished African American physician, finally barks back at his father, who's trying to browbeat him out of marrying a white girl.  His father's a retired mailman. He says he's proud of what John has done with his life, but

MR. PRENTICE  But I worked my ass off to get the money to buy you all the chances you had! You know how far I carried that bag in thirty years?  Seventy-five thousand miles.  And mowin’ lawns in the dark so you wouldn’t have to be stokin’ furnaces...  and couId bear down on the books.  And what l mean to say is--

JOHN:  You’ve said what you had to say.
You listen to me. You say you don’t want to tell me how to live my life? What do you think you’ve been doing? You tell me what rights I’ve got or haven’t got... and what I owe to you for what you’ve done for me.  Let me tell you something.
I owe you nothing.
If you carried that bag a million miles, you did what you were supposed to do... because you brought me into this world ... and from that day you owed me... everything you could ever do for me, like I will owe my son... if I ever have another.



***

Those Winter Sundays
By Robert Hayden (1913 - 1980)


Sundays too my father got up early
and put his clothes on in the blueblack cold,
then with cracked hands that ached
from labor in the weekday weather made
banked fires blaze. No one ever thanked him.
I’d wake and hear the cold splintering, breaking.
When the rooms were warm, he’d call,
and slowly I would rise and dress,
fearing the chronic angers of that house,
Speaking indifferently to him,
who had driven out the cold
and polished my good shoes as well.
What did I know, what did I know
of love’s austere and lonely offices?


Part 1 - Part 2

Father Figure - Part 1

Death closes all: but something ere the end,
Some work of noble note, may yet be done

--Alfred, Lord Tennyson, Ulysses


 

Sixteen finds me
Blowing out candles and making wishes
And all around me
Is everyone but the one I'm wishing for
And he sent me flowers
And gift-wrapped excuses
 From a daddy whose daughter
 Wants to see him again

 And I know, I know It's just another birthday
But I guess I thought
This would be the one
When he would call me, see me
Hold me and free me
But it's just another birthday
And I'll be fine
I'll be fine

Nineteen finds me
And I'm wild-eyed and wide open
I gave myself away to love
But backseat promises fade like a mist
I'm screaming at the midnight air
Everyone hears me but I don't care
My heart's clenched just like a fist
'Cause, people, I didn't ask for any of this

I know, I know
It's just another birthday
But I guess I thought
This would be the one
When he would call me, see me
Hold me and free me
But it's just another birthday
And I'm not fine
I'm not fine

In the company of strangers
In a cold and sterile room
All alone with a child inside me
And I don't know what to do
Jesus, can You hear me
Come and heal my brokenness
Put the pieces back together
And be a Father to the fatherless
A father to the fatherless

Twenty-one finds me
Blowing out candles and making wishes
And all around me
My barefoot princess twirls and sings
It's so amazing

Looking back at all God's brought us through
You are my happy birthday
And you were born to break the chains
Now I know, I know
It's not just another birthday
'Cause I'm here, she's here
And look how far we've come
Since you've called me, saw me
Held me and freed me
Thank you, Lord, for another birthday
And we'll be fine
We'll be fine

- Casting Crowns, Come to the Well (2011)


Part 1 - Part 2 -

Mistakes We Never Stop Paying For

DAVIS

That's part of your problem: you haven't seen enough movies. All of life's riddles are answered in the movies.

-- Grand Canyon (1991; dir. Lawrence Kasdan)

***

ROY

Some mistakes I guess we never stop paying for. (beat)  I didn't even know her.

IRIS

The girl on the train?  You liked her, didn't you?

ROY

Yes.  But I didn’t see it coming.

IRIS

  How could you know she'd hurt you? How could anyone?

ROY

I didn't see it coming.

IRIS

You should've?

ROY

Yes. But I didn't. Why didn't I?

IRIS

You were so young.

ROY

Things sure turned out different.

IRIS

In what way?

ROY

Different.  For years, I've lived with the idea that I could be the best in the game.

IRIS

You're so good now!

ROY

I could've been better.  I could've broke every record in the book.

IRIS

And then?

ROY

"And then"?  When I walked down the street, people would've said:   "There goes Roy Hobbs, the best there ever was in this game."

IRIS

You know, I believe we have two lives.

ROY

How? What do you mean?

IRIS

The life we learn with and the life we live with after that.  With or without the records, they'll remember you.

-- The Natural (1984; dir. Barry Levinson)

***

And in the quick of the night
They reach for their moment
And try to make an honest stand
But they wind up wounded, not even dead
Tonight in jungle land

-- Bruce Springsteen "Jungleland"  Born to Run, 1975 (written by Robert Scottwino Weinrich)

Patton Explains Academe

It is a huge lecture hall.  An image saying “Speak truth to the powerless” dominates the screen.  Patton emerges from his grave.

Be paupers.

Now I want you to remember that few PhDs ever get the job they really wanted. They get used to taking a job at some college where they feel under-placed.

Now, all this stuff about there not being many jobs, much less tenure-track jobs, is absolute gospel. Colleges love to exploit PhDs.  Most real colleges love to make you adjuncts.

When you were undergrads you all admired the coolest lecturer, the trendy scholar, the big deal professors, the erudite intellectuals.  Honors students love to apply to grad school and cannot be dissuaded.  Applicants overestimate their chances all the time. I wouldn’t give a hoot in hell for your chances of ever getting benefits.  That’s why adjuncts have never gotten, and will never get a living wage. Because the very thought of paying a decent wage is hateful to administrators.

Now, tenured faculty like to complain on your behalf.  They talk, fume, and pretend to sympathize with your plight. This "we’re all in this together" stuff is a bunch of crap.  The Ivy League bastards who feign indignation in the Chronicle of Higher Education don’t know any more about real job inequities than they do about teaching eight courses a year.

Now you have the most unrealistic expectations, the best intentions, and the worst career path in the world.  You know, by god I actually pity you starry-eyed saps, by god I do.  We’re not going to just crush your spirit. We’re going to remove your grip on reality and make you TA’s to speed the progress of our research.  We’re going to exploit you gullible chumps by the bushel.

Now some of you innocents, I know, are thinking you’ll get a decent job.  Don’t count on it.  I can assure you that you will all get screwed to the wall.  Administrators will be your enemy. Cower before them. Take their crap.  Get ulcers in your belly.  When you get a salary cut, that a fortnight before was a solemn promise you wouldn’t, you’ll know you were screwed.

Now there's another thing I want you to remember. Administrators don't want to get any messages saying you need decent benefits. They’re not giving you anything. Let your parents do that. They are proliferating constantly and they’re not interested in paying anyone -- except themselves. They’re going to grab you where it hurts, and they’re gonna blow smoke up your ass. They’re gonna exploit the hell out of you all the time, and they’re gonna tell you fairy tales like a sociopathic Mother Goose!

Now there’s one thing that you will be able to mumble to yourself in your cramped apartment, and you may thank your vague spirituality for it. Twenty years from now, with your dead end job still crushing your soul, and the creditors at your door, and you wonder what the hell did you do with your life, you won’t have to think:  “Well, at least I didn’t teach online courses for Take Their Money U.”

All right now you human beings, you know I don’t care.

Oh.  I will be proud to lead you gullible fools down the garden path any time I can get my readings course to subscribe.

That’s all.