United, Regardless, and a Bit Regretful: Confederate History Month, the Slavery Apology, and the Failure of Commemoration Katherine D
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
American Nineteenth Century History Vol. 9, No. 3, September 2008, 315–338 United, Regardless, and a Bit Regretful: Confederate History Month, the Slavery Apology, and the Failure of Commemoration Katherine D. Walker* University College, Virginia Commonwealth University, Richmond, VA, USA TaylorFANC_A_329010.sgm10.1080/14664650802288431American1466-4658Original200893000000SeptemberKatherineWalkerkdwalker@vcu.edu and& Article FrancisNineteenth (print)/1743-7906Francis 2008 Century (online) History Three governors of Virginia issued a succession of proclamations declaring April to be the month in which Virginians should celebrate their Confederate forebears; a few years afterwards Virginia became the first state to “apologize” for slavery. While the messages in these official expressions seem radically different, this article examines the similar messages that appeared in the proclamations and the apology. Addressed to specific audiences, official commemorative proclamations create boundaries and function to include and exclude groups from the larger collectivity. “Whiteness” has long been presented as guiltless in Confederate narrative; thus whites are free to ignore their racial identity and claim ownership of the regional, local or historic identities upon which commemorative projects are based. The introduction of the realities of slavery into such narratives thus disrupts many whites’ sense of history and identity, causing resistance to revision of the historical narrative. Keywords: commemoration; collective memory; race; slavery; Confederacy From 1995 through 2001, three governors of Virginia issued a succession of proclamations declaring April to be the month in which Virginians should celebrate their Confederate forebears; not surprisingly this caused great controversy. In 2007, the General Assembly of Virginia issued an expression of regret for the state’s role in slavery. These bare facts suggest that attitudes in the state have changed enormously in a short time. An examination of the proclamations and a brief comparison of their message with the expression of regret, however, shows that the latter still denies the contributions of enslaved and free African Americans to the history of Virginia. The controversy, round 1 (Allen) In 1990, Virginia Governor Douglas Wilder (Democrat), grandchild of former slaves, first elected black governor in the United States, declared a week in April “Last Chapter of the Civil War Days,” honoring Robert E. Lee, Ulysses Grant, and Abraham Lincoln. No events were planned to mark the proclamation, no controversy ensued, and few Virginians even took notice.1 In 1995, 1996 and 1997, Virginia Governor George Allen (Republican), son of a former Washington Redskins coach, issued a proclamation declaring April to be “Confederate History and Heritage Month.” The proclamation reads *Email: [email protected] ISSN 1466-4658 print/ISSN 1743-7903 online © 2008 Taylor & Francis DOI: 10.1080/14664650802288431 http://www.informaworld.com 316 K.D. Walker WHEREAS, it was during the invigorating month of April that the people of the Confederate States of America began and ended a four-year struggle for independence and sovereign rights; and WHEREAS, the numerous battlefields, monuments, museums and other historical sites to be found in Virginia allow our citizens, and indeed people the world over, to remember and pay tribute to the men and women of that unique time in the history of our Commonwealth and the nation; and WHEREAS Virginia has long recognized her Confederate history, the officers and enlisted men of the Army and Navy and those at home who made sacrifices on behalf of the cause for their families, homes, communities, Virginia and country; and WHEREAS, it is important to all Virginians to reflect upon our Commonwealth’s past and to respect the honorable sacrifices of her leaders, soldiers and citizens to the cause of liberty and the cause of preserving the self-determination of the bond of States who voluntarily joined the Confederate States of America; and WHEREAS, when overwhelmed by insurmountable numbers and resources of their determined opponents, the surviving, imprisoned and injured Confederate soldiers gave their word and allegiance to the United States of America and returned to their homes and families to rebuild their communities in peace; and WHEREAS, the significance of this era in history of the Commonwealth and the nation continues to be a source of pride, honor and respect for millions of Americans; NOW, THEREFORE, I, George Allen, Governor, do hereby proclaim April 1997, as CONFEDERATE HISTORY AND HERITAGE MONTH in the COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA, and I call this observance to the attention of all citizens.2 In 1997, an Associated Press reporter asked officials in the Virginia National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP) if they were aware of the proclamation— they weren’t—and faxed them a copy. After seeing the proclamation’s references to the Confederacy’s “four-year struggle for independence and sovereign rights” and “the honorable sacrifices of [Virginia’s] leaders, soldiers, and citizens to the cause of liberty” and noting that it did not mention slavery, the NAACP began to lobby against any more such proclamations.3 Confederate heritage groups jumped to the proclamation’s defense. This conflict proved irresistible to Richmond’s media, particularly the Richmond Times- Dispatch—the largest daily, with circulation ranging from 180,000 to 220,000 daily—and the Richmond Free Press, a free weekly with a circulation of 31,500, both of which reported heavily on the quickly escalating rhetoric of those involved. On 11 April 1997, the executive secretary of the Virginia NAACP, Linda Byrd-Harden, was quoted in the Richmond Times- Dispatch as saying the proclamation “border[ed] on treason.” The governor’s press secretary accused the NAACP of deliberately waiting until an election year to make a fuss and claimed that Confederate History Month was a celebration of ethnic heritage analogous to Black History Month. NAACP field organizer Salim Khalfani pointed out that the Allen cabinet was “lily white” and called modern Confederate sympathizers “losers.” The governor’s chief of staff attributed Khalfani’s remarks to “hysteria.”4 The Free Press placed a headline beginning “Allen’s Rebel act” above its masthead and carried similar quotes. In a front-page story, Khalfani was quoted as saying, “We want to American Nineteenth Century History 317 send a clear message to Gov. Allen and all elected officials that it is unacceptable to salute the Confederacy in flowery language and ignore how devastating this period was for people of African descent.” The article reminded readers that Governor Allen had displayed a Confederate flag at his house until he ran for governor, and Allen was referred to in a separate editorial as “the dim-witted Republican governor [who] saluted the traitorous, anti-United States, pro-slavery Confederacy’s ‘Four-year struggle.’”5 Allen apologized, while defending the proclamation by saying—somewhat ambigu- ously—that ignoring the Civil War would be like ignoring the Holocaust. The NAACP leaders were not mollified; Byrd-Harden said “We’re not asking for an apology because only a person who had sensitivity would know that was an improper thing to do in the first place.”6 The controversy played out in the media. Times-Dispatch columnist Michael Williams weighed in about the proclamation, beginning “Sometimes it’s not what you say, but how you say it,” referring to the proclamation’s “reverent” tone. And as to the proclamation’s wording, he said: I detected faint strains of “Dixie” as the Allen decree spoke of the Confederacy’s “four-year struggle for independence and sovereign rights.” The chorus reached a crescendo at the passage about “sacrifices on behalf of the cause.” It swelled during the part about “the honorable sacrifices of (Virginia’s) Confederate leaders, soldiers and citizens to the cause of liberty.” And I needed earplugs—or a barf bag—at the passage about Confederate soldiers returning home “to rebuild their communities in peace.” I guess Allen and his staff forgot about Nathan Bedford Forrest, the former Confederate general who, with a band of other Confederate Army veterans, formed the Ku Klux Klan shortly after the war … Walk for a second in the footprints of the descendants of slaves and you’ll understand how flowery language about “liberty,” “independence” and “sovereign rights” can come off as so much hypocrisy.7 On the last day of Confederate History Month, 1997—which was to be the last under Governor Allen—two groups held protests. The NAACP held a fake burial at the State Capitol, placing the proclamation in a casket.8 The Sons of Confederate Veterans (SCV) held a rally at the Capitol a few hours later, to show support for the governor. SCV member Robert Reid was quoted as saying: We denounce organizations and individuals who use the beloved symbols of the Confederacy as symbols of hate and intolerance. We also denounce those organizations who wish to eliminate those symbols. Rewriting history and changing the truth does not make us a stronger people or nation.9 Despite the month-long front-page coverage, neither rally drew many people. The Times-Dispatch reported about 40 people at the NAACP rally and about 18 at the SCV rally, while the Free Press reported on the mock funeral only, and did not mention the small turnout. Despite this seeming lack of interest, the issue was kept alive by local media. Former governor Douglas Wilder wrote a column in the Times-Dispatch that criticized Allen’s praise of the Confederate cause and his characterization of the Confederacy as fight- ing for “liberty.” Wilder reminded readers that his own 1990 proclamation had honored Lee, Grant, Lincoln, and the end of the war, creating a more balanced commemoration.10 318 K.D. Walker A polling company for a Norfolk paper released a survey that claimed that Virginians were largely in favor of the proclamation, but the survey’s results were called into question when its methodology came under fire.11 Letters to the editor weighed in on all sides of the debate.