United, Regardless, and a Bit Regretful: Confederate History Month, the Slavery Apology, and the Failure of Commemoration Katherine D

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]

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 fighting 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. At least one urged Virginians toward compromise:

Any socially sensitive and historically cognizant Virginian has to feel a certain amount of ambiv- alence. To black Richmonders, many of whom can claim a family lineage in this city back to and even beyond the Civil War, and who have had to struggle against enormous adversity, the Confederate experience may well seem a hateful symbol of the unjust degradation of an entire race. Conversely, the War Between the States, aptly described as the American Iliad, and the near-mythical proportions of the men who fought it, has been an abiding source of fascination and pride for generations of Virginians—their state and this city being the focal point of the conflict. It is a futile proposition indeed to pass too severe a judgment on most past individuals and societies whose values and customs seem alien to us, for future generations may well be appalled by many of our own. Perhaps in the not-distant future, Virginians of all backgrounds will look back on the courage and sacrifice of a J.E.B. Stuart and a Gabriel Prosser with equal pride and wonder.12

Allen never met with the NAACP about the issue, and his term came to an end. Governor Allen’s proclamations relied on a Civil War narrative that claims the war was fought for noble purposes on both sides, that the Confederacy was formed as an extension of the American Revolution’s fight for self-determination, and that slavery had nothing to do with any of it. In the proclamation, Allen offered various causes of the war: “liberty,” “self-determination,” “independence and sovereign rights.” This was enough to cause controversy in itself, as the column by Williams showed. But the proclamation contained another rhetorical trick: it excluded African Americans from the identity of “Virginian.” The historical figures referred to in the proclamation are “officers and enlisted men of the army and navy” and “those at home who made sacrifices on behalf of the cause” and “leaders, soldiers and citizens.” Most of these terms applied only to white people. While certainly African Americans made sacrifices during the war, they were not citizens, nor were they allowed to join the military, nor were they Confederate leaders. Thus, the contributions of African Americans to the sweep of Civil War history were ignored by Allen. Present-day Virginians were placed into the category of Confederate sympathizers. Anyone else who was not invested in honoring the Confederacy was completely left out of the category of Virginian, and excluded from the collectivity as defined officially by the governor. To be a Virginian was to be a white Confederate sympathizer.

Governor Gilmore and Confederate History Month, 1998–2000 Before April rolled around in 1998, Virginia had a new governor, Republican James Gilmore, who vowed to avoid Allen’s errors in his own Confederate History Month proclamation. In early 1998, while the SCV was celebrating Black History Month by sending the Times- Dispatch “a fact sheet summarizing, among other things, African-American participation in the Civil War for both Union and Confederate forces,” Gilmore began thinking about the past controversy, and by the end of March he announced that his proclamation would “include everyone,” “reflect the complete society” and “denounce slavery.”13 Despite the promised improvements, the NAACP lobbied against having any proclamation at all. As American Nineteenth Century History 319 usual, they also used their moment in the spotlight to highlight other issues, this time complaining that the new governor was also breaking promises to appoint minorities to positions in his administration. As the first week of April passed without a proclamation appearing, members of the Heritage Preservation Association of Virginia Inc. (HPAV)— another Confederate heritage group—complained that Gilmore was breaking a campaign promise to honor the Confederate dead. A leader of one local chapter said that “Northern propaganda and the NAACP have demonized the Southern cause” and complained that if Black History Month didn’t have to be inclusive, Confederate History Month shouldn’t have to be inclusive either.14 They needn’t have worried; Gilmore came out with his proclamation shortly thereafter. Before April’s end, Gilmore issued the following:

WHEREAS, it was during the month of April that the people of the Confederate States of America began at Fort Sumter, South Carolina and ended at Appomattox, Virginia a four-year tragic, heroic and determined struggle for deeply held beliefs; 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 their families, homes, communities, Virginia and country; and that it is just and right to do so; and

WHEREAS, the noble spirit and inspiring leadership of the great Confederate Generals, leaders, and the ordinary men and women, free and not free, of the Confederate States is an integral part of the history of all of America; and

WHEREAS, upon the conclusion of the war, many of these same leaders and citizens worked tirelessly to reunite and rebuild this country and forge reconciliation; and

WHEREAS, our recognition of Confederate history also recognizes that slavery was one of the causes of the war; and

WHEREAS, slavery was a practice that deprived African-Americans of their God-given inalienable rights, which degraded the human spirit, is abhorred and condemned by Virginians, and was ended by this war; and

WHEREAS, the numerous battlefields, monuments, museums and other historical sites to be found in Virginia allow our citizens, and indeed people from all over the world, to remember, study, and appreciate the men and women of that unique time in the history of our Commonwealth and nation, and

WHEREAS, Virginia is proud and pleased to recognize and celebrate all those who fought and sacrificed in this great struggle that divided families, the nation, and our Commonwealth; and

WHEREAS, the knowledge of the role of the Confederate States of America in the history of our nation and our Commonwealth is vital to understanding who we are and what we are; and

WHEREAS, we honor our past and from it draw the courage, strength and wisdom to reconcile ourselves, and go forward into the future together as Virginians and Americans,

NOW, THEREFORE, I, James S. Gilmore, Governor, do hereby recognize April 1998 as Confederate History Month in the Commonwealth of Virginia, and I call this observance to the attention of all our citizens.15 320 K.D. Walker

The reaction was mixed. At least one letter to the editor in the Times-Dispatch called Confederates “traitors,” and at least one defended them. Former governor Wilder praised the proclamation, but other local leaders were more negative, with the pro-Confederate side protesting the mention of slavery. The president of the HPAV, R. Wayne Byrd Sr., said “I feel insulted that this man would cater to racist hate groups such as the NAACP.” Colin Pulley, leader of the Virginia SCV, said, “We honor our Confederate heroes not because of slavery but in spite of slavery … Over 90 percent did not own slaves. It is inappropriate in honoring Confederate History Month to have such a statement about slavery.” Khalfani from the NAACP was somewhat pleased about the inclusion of language condemning slavery but complained that the proclamation “still mentions that Virginia is proud to celebrate the fighters and others who made sacrifices in the divisive struggle … There’s nothing to celebrate.” As the discussion of slavery continued in the media, Byrd of the HPAV objected that slavery was not always that bad, to which Wilder responded “Happy slaves? Tell that man to try being my slave … It is amazing the people who still refuse to understand the effects of what it did to the people of this country.”16 Some people appeared bored with the controversy. Times-Dispatch columnist Williams wrote a column asking what the big deal was. Williams saw the proclamation as “a benign, Clintonesque display of empathy” and pointed out that the NAACP’s national chair was more accepting of the proclamation than was the state chapter. A local historian was quoted in the Times-Dispatch as saying the controversy was “tiresome.” The Free Press demoted coverage of the new proclamation to page A10, noting that it was better than Allen’s, and spending more time critiquing Gilmore’s appointments than his proclamation.17 This coverage remained muted, even when the SCV took out an ad in the Free Press, urging readers to come to a Confederate History Month celebration; the Free Press printed the ad and commented in an editorial,

As Readers of these columns know, the Free Press [sic] does not find the pro-slavery Confeder- acy or its oppressive, racist doctrine worthy of celebration.

At the same time, we fully respect the First Amendment, which, we think, guarantees even Confederate propagandists the right of free expression.18

Gilmore’s proclamation was an attempt to compromise. As a Republican, following the Republican Allen, Gilmore was under pressure from the SCV and similar groups to continue issuing the Confederate History Month proclamation, but also pressured by the NAACP to not issue them. He tried to create a compromise that would satisfy both sides. His strategy— issuing the proclamation but criticizing slavery—failed because it is hard to honor a group while simultaneously connecting it with something as nefarious as slavery. As one local history professor pointed out, “A proclamation is celebratory, designed to praise … He was trying to celebrate the heroism of the Confederacy while admitting that in some respects it was a flawed cause. It is difficult to ride two horses at the same time.”19 The attempt to make the proclamation palatable by disavowing slavery was awkward. The phrase “free and not free” shows an attempt to include the slaves in the category of those with “noble spirit.” This was getting somewhere, since Allen had neglected the issue of slavery altogether. Gilmore’s proclamation condemned slavery—an improvement over the Allen version—but it was discussed in a passive voice that robbed the phrases of any real American Nineteenth Century History 321 regret or responsibility. Slavery “deprived African Americans of their God-given rights”— not slaveholders, but slavery. Gilmore tried to sidestep the question of cause—he mentioned the states’ rights argument obliquely (“deeply held beliefs”), and while he mentioned slavery as a cause, it floated unconnected with any explanation. Slavery was ended by the war— another passive construction that left aside the question of Confederate desire on the topic. While there was acknowledgement of wrongs done, there was no sense of the relationship between the Confederacy and the wrongdoing or between the Confederacy and slavery. Finally, the wording—as in the Allen proclamation—still implied that all Virginians were and are Confederates. It suggested that slaves were Confederate supporters. Unlike the Allen proclamation, it included blacks in the definition of “Virginian,” but it did so under a banner that was offensive to the NAACP’s constituency. Like the Allen proclamation, it offended because it used official state power to praise the Confederacy. Gilmore did not understand what was so offensive to the NAACP about Confederate History Month. The NAACP took the position that the Confederacy was formed for the express purpose of defending slavery. Because of this, no official political recognition or celebration of the Confederacy would be acceptable to the NAACP, no matter how couched in apologetic language about the evils of slavery. On the other hand, the mention of slavery was unacceptable to the SCV and the HPVA’s partisans. Members of these groups have a threefold strategy to separate the Confederacy from the institution of slavery. On a national level, they claim that the Confederacy was formed for economic reasons, not for the express maintenance of slavery. (This implies slavery was merely a racial system, not the basis of the South’s economic system, an impli- cation they usually gloss over.) On a local level, they point out that Virginia did not secede from the Union until Lincoln sent troops south. This allows them to claim that Virginia’s participation in the Confederacy was a matter of self-defense, not a defense of slavery. Third, on an individual level, they point out that the majority of Southerners did not own slaves before the Civil War, implying that their ancestors are among the guiltless and therefore they should not be mentioned in connection with slavery. Again, this is problematic, since it reduces social facts to individual actions. As Maier argues “insofar as a collection of people wishes to claim existence as a society or nation, it must thereby accept existence as a community through time, hence must acknowledge that acts committed by earlier agents still bind or burden the contemporary community.”20 If the Confederacy committed wrongs in the past, then identifying with the Confederacy in the present might mean accepting responsibility for any residual problems caused by the past. Given the beliefs of each side, the rewording of the proclamation became a zero-sum game. And so, as a unifying compromise, the Gilmore’s attempt at compromise failed. Determined to ride out the controversy, Gilmore issued the same proclamation in 1999, but this time to a more muted response; the Times-Dispatch gave the proclamation little notice, and the Free Press ignored it entirely. While the NAACP had been less harsh in its criticisms in 1998, Khalfani, now executive director of the state NAACP, took a harder line in 2000. (This was perhaps because of the heightened national attention to Confederate symbols that followed an NAACP-led tourism boycott in South Carolina, stemming from a dispute over the state’s official display of the Confederate flag.) While he praised Gilmore’s other efforts toward racial equality, he said of the proclamation, “By honoring the Confederacy we are honoring traitors that tried to 322 K.D. Walker overthrow the government to ensure the institution of slavery … Their heritage is our Holocaust.” Local SCV leader Bragg Bowling took exception to the Holocaust imagery, saying “The Confederacy had no Adolf Hitlers … They did not commit a systematic extermination of people. At that time, slavery was an economic institution that was legal in this country. It was a system based on money, not on race. Blacks were unfortunately the people involved in it.”21 There were various attempts to reframe the controversy. The Sons and Daughters of the United States Colored Troops and the Sons of Union Veterans sponsored a celebration of Richmond Liberation Day. A local African-American leader wrote an editorial in the Times- Dispatch arguing that the “historical realities” left no side completely blameless; given that Africans sold other Africans into slavery:

How then can we as African-Americans celebrate in February our African history and culture as descendants of those who sold us into slavery, and not support the right of descendants of those who purchased us to celebrate their history in April? According to Confederate sympathizers, few, if any, are “celebrating” the institution of slavery; rather, they are mourning their loss of family and the painful displacement of war— no matter what its cause—and commemorating the acts of bravery they believe their ancestors accomplished in the face of Northern “invaders.” Let them have their celebrations of whatever law-abiding type. They celebrate not to diminish African-Americans in any way, but only to define themselves.22 The controversy become more heated after an incident in Chesterfield County, which is immediately south of Richmond. The county’s Board of Supervisors issued its own local Confederate History Month proclamation after refusing to allow commentary on the idea at its monthly meeting, and in response a local African American pastor called for a temporary boycott of county malls. On the Sunday specifically set aside for the boycott, while supporters of the boycott traveled together to another county to shop, David Duke—noted white supremacist, politician, and former Ku Klux Klan Grand Wizard—came to town and led a counter protest (he called it a “white-in”) at the county’s largest shopping mall.23 The NAACP at this point threatened some sort of direct action (“boycotts, marches, demonstrations, picketing, various options”).24 Gilmore, expressing shock that a boycott was under consideration, tried different approaches to compromise. A boycott could do economic damage—the state earned over $12 billion in revenues from tourism and over 200,000 Virginians’ jobs were connected to the industry. He invoked his record, which included appropriating millions of dollars to finance a proposed museum of slavery, expanding African American tourism to the state, and ending the much-hated Lee-Jackson-King Day. He tried to downplay the impact of the proclamation, saying “I don’t think there’s any need … to make it a current day rage point.”25 Khalfani suggested a compromise, a proclamation that honored the Civil War in general, not just the Confederates. Gilmore met with the NAACP representative on 10 May 2000, and managed to put off an immediate boycott by promising to reassess the proclamation. Khalfani was guardedly optimistic; Gilmore’s wife had just nipped a similar controversy in the bud, and Khalfani publicly encouraged the governor to follow her example.26 The SCV was less pleased with the idea of compromise. Although Virginia SCV Commander Robert Barbour offered to meet and talk about the controversy, he lessened the value of this offer by first refusing to apologize for slavery on behalf of the Confederacy and later referring to the NAACP as a “hate group.” Bragg Bowling, central Virginia Brigade Commander of the American Nineteenth Century History 323

SCV, took the news of impending compromise badly, saying “We feel like the governor ought to hold the line on this; he’s already made concessions.” Media coverage kept the issue in the public eye. At the Free Press, an editorial castigated Khalfani for waiting so long for a definite answer from Gilmore, and a column suggested making April 2001 “The Month to Objectively Study the History of Virginia from 1850–1901.”27 In mid-January 2001, a note on the editorial page of the Times-Dispatch read, “Just think: Only a few more weeks until the tiresome annual shoutfest over Confederate History Month.”28 Gilmore relieved the suspense in 2001 by issuing his new proclamation in the third week of March. The proclamation had undergone a complete revision, possibly inspired by Wilder’s earlier example or Khalfani’s suggestions. April 2001 became the “Commonwealth of Virginia’s Month for Remembrance of the Sacrifices and Honor of All Virginians Who Served in the Civil War.”

Governor Gilmore’s Month for Remembrance of the Sacrifices and Honor of All Virginians Who Served in the Civil War, 2001

WHEREAS, the Civil War was a defining event in American history and our Republic’s greatest internal crisis, the outcome of which transformed our country from a confederation of states to a unified Nation based upon the principle of e pluribus unum; and

WHEREAS, Virginia soil served as the dominant theater for military campaigns throughout the War, from the establishment of Richmond as the Capital of the Confederacy in April of 1861, to the battles at Manassass [sic], Fredericksburg, Chancellorsville, Fort Monroe, the Siege of Petersburg, the surrender of the Army of Northern Virginia at Appomattox Courthouse, and finally the fall of the Last Capital of the Confederacy in Danville in April of 1865; and

WHEREAS, the Civil War was a fratricidal conflict that divided families, relatives, and friends, where brother fought against brother, and where over 3,500,000 Americans, including over 400,000 African-Americans, both free men and slaves, fought or participated in a war which saw over 600,000 of their fellow countrymen, including over 40,000 African-American soldiers, killed, and

WHEREAS, Virginians, both Confederate and Union, distinguished themselves in their service, fought with bravery against overwhelming odds, and sacrificed their lives in defense of their deeply held beliefs; and

WHEREAS, it is fitting to recognize the historical contribution of great Virginians who served the Confederacy with honor, such as General Robert E. Lee of Westmoreland County, who sacrificed all of his family’s material belongings to stand with his native Virginia in secession and who led the proud and mighty Army of Northern Virginia through many arduous battles from Richmond to Gettysburg, and General Thomas “Stonewall” Jackson of Clarksburg, who died with the respect of his soldiers and his state in defense of his convictions, as well as thousands of other Virginians, military and civilian, who fought and sacrificed for the Confederacy; and

WHEREAS, it is fitting to recognize the historical contributions of great Virginians who served the Union with honor, such as Sergeant William H. Carney of the 54th Massachusetts Volunteers, a son of Norfolk who fled slavery to become the first African-American soldier to receive the Congressional Medal of Honor for his valor at the siege of Fort Wagner where he was struck by three bullets, and General William R. Terrill of Covington, who commanded his troops through one of the War’s bloodiest battles at Shiloh, brother of Confederate General 324 K.D. Walker

James Terrill, both of whom died in battle, as well as thousands of other Virginians, military and civilian, who fought and sacrificed for the Union; and

WHEREAS, our generation’s recognition of this historical era necessarily acknowledges that the practice of slavery was an affront to man’s natural dignity, deprived African-Americans of their God-given inalienable rights, degraded the human spirit and is abhorred and condemned by Virginians, and likewise that had there been no slavery there would have been no war; and

WHEREAS, the four years of Civil War was suffered by both North and South to protect what each side believed to be threatened rights and imperiled liberty as bequeathed to them by our founding fathers—the one for liberty in the union of the states, the other for liberty in the independence of the States; and

WHEREAS, the meeting between Robert E. Lee and Ulysses S. Grant on that Spring day April 9, 1865 in Appomattox, Virginia, set the Nation on its course toward reconciliation and rededicated Americans to the proposition that all men are created equal and that only a nation so dedicated can long endure, and

WHEREAS, we honor our past and from it draw the courage, strength and wisdom to reconcile ourselves, and go forward into the future together as Virginians and Americans; and

WHEREAS, remembrance of the profound sacrifices and honorable service of the men and women of Virginia who served both Confederacy and Union shall unite Virginians of all regions, races, and creeds forever more;

NOW, THEREFORE, I, James S. Gilmore, III, Governor of Virginia, do hereby recognize April 2001 as the Commonwealth of Virginia’s Month for Remembrance of the Sacrifices and Honor of All Virginians Who Served in the Civil War, and I call upon our citizens to appreciate the sacrifices of all Virginians, regardless of what side they served, in the great conflict that changed our country forever and laid the foundation for the great Nation we are today.29

The Governor claimed that this version “denigrates no one and honors everyone; this is the right approach.”30 The Times-Dispatch characterized this new proclamation as an “attempt to walk a racial and political tightrope.” It was ultimately an unsuccessful attempt, although Gilmore had toned down the lauding of Confederates and included stronger language about slavery. As the paper editorialized,

When debates center not on policy but on honor, then a happy outcome grows almost impossible to achieve. Every difference of opinion is (mis)perceived as an insult, every point as a slur. The South’s appreciation of tragedy coexists with its penchant for farce.31

The Free Press was jubilant, announcing in a headline that “Gilmore erases rebel month.”32 The proclamation had changed from a celebration of the Confederacy to a somber, inclusive memorial to both sides in the Civil War. Gilmore tried to create a month to honor American Nineteenth Century History 325 all Virginians during the Civil War: Confederate and Union, free and slave, and blacks and whites were included as Virginians. In the new narrative, the war was no longer glorious; it was a “fratricidal conflict.” Gilmore still hedged about the war’s cause; slavery, untethered from any connection to the Confederacy, was assigned responsibility for the war, but this seemed to have little to do with either the Union or the Confederacy, both still presented as fighting for a version of liberty. As an attempt to create a new narrative about the Civil War, it was a pretty good try. Still, as a successful unifying commemorative proclamation, it was a failure. Why? Unity can involve creating a text upon which all can agree; it can also involve creating the illusion of unity around a text that is open or vague enough for disparate groups to find their own meanings. Gilmore’s proclamation failed to create either form of unity. First, it failed because the SCV hated the new proclamation. The day after the new proclamation was released, the SCV responded strongly and negatively. Bowling called the proclamation “an affront to honorable Virginia citizens” and “a sellout” and said Gilmore did not care about the SCV’s rights. He suggested that Gilmore had caved in to the NAACP’s demands because of his new political visibility—he had just been appointed head of the National Republican Committee.33 The proclamation failed for the SCV because any dilution of the praise due Confederates was seen as a betrayal. According to letters to the Richmond Times-Dispatch, Gilmore was a “pluperfect scalawag” who “lavished undeserved praise on the services of treacherous individuals who … assisted in wreaking devastation on the South” in his “execrable” proclamation. Gilmore sold the South out; he was either “misinformed and uneducated” or spineless; he had written a “generic proclamation that says nothing.”34 One writer gave a description of the devastation of his family’s home during the Battle of Cold Harbor—a prosperous 182-acre farm, with its stores and inn ruined— commenting in the end,

Such was the bitter sacrifice of but one Southern family. The unsurpassed fortitude and love of homeland of countless others like them live on in our memories and in our hearts as we honor them during this Confederate History Month, political correctness and ignorance aside.35

SCV leader Henry Kidd wrote that Gilmore had “turned his back on people who have Southern heritage.”36 This reaction reveals that the SCV conflated Southern, Virginian and Confederate identities. Attempting to expand the modern-day collectivity known as “Virginians” to include any who don’t honor Confederate heritage was seen as an insult to the SCV and their ancestors. The SCV had a rigid sense of proper commemorative subject matter (the Confed- eracy), an allegiance to one particular version of the Civil War (Virginia entered the war only because Lincoln sent troops south) and a rigid sense of who belonged in the category of Virginian.37 Gilmore’s compromise proclamation was not going to unify the SCV with anyone. What about the NAACP? Khalfani went on record approving how the governor had “done the right thing in breaking from the past … from the Confederacy and its cause.” He was especially pleased that the new proclamation agreed with one of the NAACP’s main points, that “the primary cause of the war and secession was the maintenance of slavery.”38 The NAACP expressed support for the new proclamation. This didn’t mean, though, that members of the NAACP were going to celebrate the new, inclusive Civil War History 326 K.D. Walker

Month. The story told by the proclamation leans more toward their version of the Civil War, but as such, it is the story of a tragedy, not something to be praised and celebrated, not something to glory over. The NAACP was not invested in defining itself through a neutral Civil War story, whereas the SCV completely defines itself through Confederate Civil War stories. The NAACP wanted there to be no official government-sponsored glorification of the Confederacy. The SCV wanted only the Confederacy glorified, and specifically wanted to arrest the state government’s trend of distancing itself from the Confederacy. Gilmore’s attempts to compromise—to keep the Confederacy noble, and simultaneously include an equal black identity in the collectivity—led to a narrative that finally had no meaning for either side. With each succeeding gubernatorial proclamation, the commemoration became more and more generic until “Gilmore II” made April the month celebrating anyone who lived in the state from 1861–5. For commemorations to have meanings, they must be about something. Gilmore II, by commemorating everyone, celebrated no one. It was simply not possible to satisfy everyone in this case, since each side’s position had a negative impact on the identity of the opposing faction. For the SCV the compromise was an insult. For the NAACP, it was a victory, but the victory was negative—it was the absence of perceived insult rather than the achievement of a historical narrative that defined the African American experience in a positive way. The attempt to reshape the historical narrative into one that was all-inclusive was a failure. Gilmore’s compromise failed because the SCV refused to be unified with anyone under anything but a Confederate banner, and the NAACP wasn’t looking for unity under any reference to the Civil War, no matter how deftly it was phrased. Having won their point, the NAACP let the matter drop, and the SCV reacted by issuing their own proclamation a few days after Gilmore II was released. They spent $7,000, taking out a full-page ad in the Richmond Times-Dispatch, declaring April to still be Confederate History Month, “from this day forward through eternity.”

SCV’s version, Confederate History and Heritage Month

Whereas, in April 1861, the Commonwealth of Virginia, in order to retain her honor, exercised her Constitutional Right to secede from the Union.

Whereas, Virginia, known as the Mother of Presidents, did not make this decision lightly but only after exhaustive efforts to bring about a peaceful resolution to the issues which divided Southern and Northern States failed.

Whereas, when Abraham Lincoln called for 75,000 troops to put down, [sic] what he described as, [sic] the rebellion in the South, the Old Dominion, in good consciousness, refused to raise her sword against other Southern States and voted then and only then to defend herself if attacked.

Whereas, the sons of Virginia heeded the call of their Mother State by the tens of thousands to defend their country, their Commonwealth, their home and their family from an invading army.

Whereas, these brave Virginians of all races and religions fought in the Confederate Armed Forces alongside other men from across the South.

Whereas, these men sacrificed their all and spilled their blood defending the sacred soil of Virginia. American Nineteenth Century History 327

Whereas, their sacrifices Hallowed the Grounds of Manassas, Williamsburg, Seven Pines, Malvern Hill, Winchester, Shenandoah, Fredericksburg, Chancellorsville, Wilderness, Spotsylvania, New Market, Yellow Tavern, Cloyd’s Mountain, Cold Harbor, Petersburg, Bermuda Hundred, Reams Station, Cedar Creek, Five Forks, Fort Greg, High Bridge, Sayler’s Creek, Appomattox, and many other battlefields.

Whereas, Virginians also fought and died serving onboard Naval vessels such as the C.S.S. Virginia, the C.S.S. Alabama and the submarine C.S.S. Hunley.

Whereas, Richmond, Virginia, was the Capitol of the Confederate States of America and the wartime home of our beloved President Jefferson Davis.

Whereas, we must never forget the sacrifices made by the women of the South, who with every ounce of their being supported their men in uniform, undertook the duties normally performed by men, and suffered along with their children, and other citizens untold horrors in a war torn land.

Whereas, “after four years of arduous service marked by unsurpassed courage and fortitude,” as General Robert E. Lee so eloquently wrote, the war for Southern Independence ended for the fabled Army of Northern Virginia on April 9, 1865.

Whereas, the honorable blood of such brave Virginians as Robert E. Lee, Stonewall Jackson, J.E.B. Stuart and the thousands of known and unknown Heroes of Dixie from every State in the South flows through the veins of thousands of Virginia citizens.

Whereas, it is the sworn duty and privilege of the Sons of Confederate Veterans to defend the good name of the Confederate soldiers and sailors and to teach the true history of the South to future generations.

Therefore, I, Henry E. Kidd, Commander of the Virginia Division, Sons of Confederate Veterans, do hereby order that from this day forward through eternity, the month of April will be celebrated as Confederate History and Heritage Month in the Commonwealth of Virginia. I call this observance to the attention of all citizens of the Commonwealth of Virginia and all members of the Virginia Division, Sons of Confederate Veterans.39

Kidd claimed about this proclamation that “This is the way most of us in Virginia feel about our ancestors. We are honoring men who were warriors and shed their blood for Virginia.”40 The SCV proclamation lacked the political power of the governors’ proclamations. Its content was what could be expected from an interest group that was founded in part to preserve positive memories of the Confederacy. Ironically enough, it appeared to be more racially inclusive than Allen’s proclamation, mentioning the “brave Virginians of all races and religions” that fought for the Confederacy. There was room in this proclamation to be both Virginian and black—black, Virginian, and Confederate, anyway. The SCV sidestepped the issue of slavery by telling a story in which Virginia entered the Civil War only because Lincoln sent troops south—whether or not the Civil War had something to do with slavery, Virginia’s Civil War had nothing to do with the institution. The NAACP took no official position on the contents of the proclamation, since it was not issued by the state. While the Times-Dispatch published the proclamation and letters supporting it, some of its columnists saw the situation as absurd. Barton Hinkle, an editorial writer for the Times-Dispatch, responded to the SCV’s proclamation in a column that began 328 K.D. Walker by calling it “somewhat ungrammatical” and went on to characterize it as the SCV rising again. Hinkle wrote that surely everyone could agree that slavery was bad; surely Virginia’s Union soldiers were as brave as her Confederates. He poked at Bowling’s complaint about the governor trampling on his rights: “What rights Bowling refers to is unclear. Nobody has a right to have the Governor issue a proclamation praising his forebears.” The SCV was always complaining about something, he claimed—the school’s Standards of Learning, the Ashe statue, the renaming of the Lee and Jackson bridges, the state blocking the Confederate flag from appearing on license plates. He granted that many of its members might be merely interested in history, and might not have any racist mission in mind with their support of Confederate symbols, and he conceded that, in part, “racial tensions loom whenever Confederate issues arise, if only because of the NAACP’s frequent public stand against whatever the SCV wants.” Still, he questioned why the SCV insisted on clinging to symbols that other less benign groups (segregationists and the like) had tainted through the years. While he was at it, he also questioned the NAACP’s judgment in fighting over every last thing the SCV did, which ultimately just gave the group more attention and publicity.41 In August 2001 the controversy took a surprising turn as Bishop Gerald O. Glenn—the pastor who led the 2000 mall boycott in Chesterfield County—and Henry Kidd, the Commander of the Virginia SCV, had a public reconciliation, initiated by Kidd, at Bishop Glenn’s church. During this reconciliation the two men “embraced at an altar” and cried. Kidd spoke to the congregation, saying “I can understand your pain if you can understand my pride. Stereotypes and lies are the work of the devil. They keep us separate … I have nothing in my heart but love and respect for you.” A Times-Dispatch writer editorialized that the moment “would make a great movie … were it not for the fact that no one would believe it.”42 The September 2001 terrorist attacks included one attack on Virginia’s soil (the Pentagon), and in the ensuing furor, Virginia media mostly dropped the issue of Confederate History Month. SCV leader Kidd turned to fundraising for the Pentagon and World Trade Center victims’ families, selling copies of a picture he drew of the 9/11 rescuers. (To the surprise of some Richmonders, he drew a black policeman and a white fireman working together.) Times- Dispatch columnist Williams noted with surprise that there were Confederate History Month petitions at November’s Oyster Festival.43 A new governor, Democrat Mark Warner, was elected in November 2001; he announced that he had no plans to continue the proclamations. The issue did not die completely, as some SCV members and some would-be governors revived the issue for the 2005 gubernatorial election, when the election of Democrat Tim Kaine, in November 2005, rendered the debate moot for another four years. Because a large proportion of the citizenry at least nominally believes that there was a link between the Confederacy and slavery, attempts to celebrate the Confederacy will be seen as an insult to black people. At the same time, pointing out the nature of the insult is an affront to many white people, who deny such a link. Any honest attempt at narrating the complexity of the past is also doomed to fail in this context, since gubernatorial proclamations of this sort are not supposed to be honest reckonings; by the rules of the genre, they are supposed to be laudatory and triumphant. The saga of these proclamations thus begins with an attempt to hold onto a version of the Civil War in which the Confederacy is pure. Prior to the civil rights movement, this American Nineteenth Century History 329 narrative—used by neo-Confederates, academics, and much of the general (white) public—repudiated the link between slavery and the Confederacy first by denying that slavery caused the war and second, by sanitizing slavery itself with images of benevolent slave owners and contented slaves. In recent decades, the “happy-slaves” motif has lost credibility (although as we saw above, it is still occasionally invoked by heritage groups); the romantic story of the antebellum South is dead, and those who would defend the Confederacy do so by repudiating the story of slavery as cause. The idea that slavery was at least a partial cause of the Civil War has gained so much traction in the public mind, though, that the only effective way to celebrate the Confederacy is to try to end-run around the issue of slavery altogether, for example, with a narrative that purifies Virginia’s reasons for entering the war. Once slavery is introduced into discussion of the Confederacy, it cannot be ignored, nor can it easily be explained away. It can certainly ruin a celebration of the Confederacy. In this case we see that the difficult, racially divisive narrative was not the sole cause of the proclamations’ failure. The argument about the narrative, and the manner in which all parties involved frequently used the proclamations to introduce other racially based grievances, shows that racial divisions were in large part responsible for the failure. At the same time, though, the multiple attempts to create a narrative that was inclusive finally brought forth a story in which all were honored; a successful compromise was created. Gilmore’s proclamation ultimately failed, not because it was not unifying enough, but because it could not simultaneously unify and celebrate, and because as a proclamation, it was required to celebrate. Thus Confederate History Month became a zero-sum game, a win for one side meant a loss for the other—a situation which is sadly emblematic of many of Virginia’s attempts to find a unifying historical narrative.

The slavery apology When compared to the multiyear dustup over Confederate History Month, the two- month-long struggle to create an apology for slavery in early 2007 seems remarkably tame, little more than an epilogue that suggests the state’s ability to address the question of slavery has improved. On further examination, the “apology” becomes more problematic and suggests that the lack of unity revealed by the Confederate History Month proclamations lingers on, in a slightly less obvious form. On 10 January, State Delegate Donald McEachin and State Senator Henry L. Marsh introduced a bill to the Virginia General Assembly that would apologize for slavery and promote reconciliation between the races in Virginia.

WHEREAS, slavery has been documented as a worldwide practice since antiquity, dating back to 3500 B.C. in ancient Mesopotamia; and

WHEREAS, during the course of the infamous Atlantic slave trade, millions of Africans became involuntary immigrants to the New World, and the first African slaves in the North American colonies were brought to Jamestown, in 1619; and

WHEREAS, the Atlantic slave trade was a lucrative enterprise, and African slaves, a prized commodity to support the economic base of plantations in the colonies, were traded for tropical products, manufactured goods, sugar, molasses, and other merchandise; and 330 K.D. Walker

WHEREAS, some African captives resisted enslavement by fleeing from slave forts on the West African coast and others mutinied aboard slave trading vessels, cast themselves into the Atlantic Ocean, or risked the cruel retaliation of their masters by running away to seek freedom; and

WHEREAS, although the United States outlawed the transatlantic slave trade in 1808, the domestic slave trade in the colonies and illegal importation continued for several decades; and

WHEREAS, slavery, or the “Peculiar Institution,” in the United States resembled no other form of involuntary servitude, as Africans were captured and sold at auction as chattel, like inanimate property or animals; and

WHEREAS, to prime Africans for slavery, the ethos of the Africans was shattered, they were brutalized, humiliated, dehumanized, and subjected to the indignity of being stripped of their names and heritage, and families were disassembled as husbands and wives, mothers and daughters, and fathers and sons were sold into slavery apart from one another; and

WHEREAS, a series of complex colonial laws were enacted to relegate the status of Africans and their descendants to slavery, in spite of their loyalty, dedication, and service to the country, including heroic and distinguished service in the Civil War; and

WHEREAS, the system of slavery had become entrenched in American history and the social fabric, and the issue of enslaved Africans had to be addressed as a national issue, contributing to the Civil War from 1861 to 1865 and the passage of the 13th Amendment to the United States Constitution, which abolished slavery and involuntary servitude on December 18, 1865; and

WHEREAS, after emancipation from 246 years of slavery, African Americans soon saw the political, social, and economic gains they made during Reconstruction dissipated by virulent and rabid racism, lynchings, disenfranchisement of African-American voters, Black Codes designed to reimpose the subordination of African Americans, and Jim Crow laws that instituted a rigid system of de jure segregation in virtually all areas of life and that lasted until the passage of the 1964 Civil Rights Act and the 1965 Voting Rights Act; and

WHEREAS, throughout their existence in America and even in the decades after the Civil Rights Movement, African Americans have found the struggle to overcome the bitter legacy of slavery long and arduous, and for many African Americans the scars left behind are unbear- able, haunting their psyches and clouding their vision of the future and of America’s many attributes; and

WHEREAS, acknowledgment of the crimes and persecution visited upon other peoples during World War II is embraced lest the world forget, yet the very mention of the broken promise of “40 acres and a mule” to former slaves or of the existence of racism today evokes denial from many quarters of any responsibility for the centuries of legally sanctioned deprivation of African Americans of their endowed rights or for contemporary policies that perpetuate the status quo; and

WHEREAS, in 2003, during a trip to Goree Island, Senegal, a former slave port, President George W. Bush stated, “Slavery is one of the greatest crimes of history, and its legacy still vexes the United States … Small men took on the powers and airs of tyrants and masters. Years of unpunished brutality and bullying and rape produced a dullness and hardness of conscience. Christian men and women became blind to the clearest commands of their faith and added hypocrisy to injustice. While physical slavery is dead, the legacy is alive. My nation’s journey toward justice has not been easy, and it is not over. For racial bigotry fed by slavery did not end with slavery or with segregation … and many of the issues that still trouble America have roots American Nineteenth Century History 331

in the bitter experience of other times … But however long the journey, our destiny is set: liberty and justice for all”; and

WHEREAS, in the Commonwealth, home to the first African slaves, the vestiges of slavery are ever before African American citizens, from the overt racism of hate groups to the subtle racism encountered when requesting health care, transacting business, buying a home, seeking quality public education and college admission, and enduring pretextual traffic stops and other indignities; and

WHEREAS, European and African nations have apologized for their roles in what history calls the worst holocaust of humankind, the Atlantic Slave Trade, and racial reconciliation is impossible without some acknowledgment of the moral and legal injustices perpetrated upon African Americans; and

WHEREAS, an apology for centuries of brutal dehumanization and injustices cannot erase the past, but confession of the wrongs can speed racial healing and reconciliation and help African American and white citizens confront the ghosts of their collective pasts together; and

WHEREAS, the story of the enslavement of Africans and their descendants, the human carnage, and the dehumanizing atrocities committed during slavery should not be purged from Virginia’s history or discounted; moreover, the faith, perseverance, hope, and endless triumphs of African Americans and their significant contributions to the development of this Common- wealth and the nation should be embraced, celebrated, and retold for generations to come; and

WHEREAS, the perpetual pain, distrust, and bitterness of many African Americans could be assuaged and the principles espoused by the Founding Fathers would be affirmed, and great strides toward unifying all Virginians and inspiring the nation to acquiesce might be accomplished, if on the eve of the commemoration of the 400th anniversary of the first permanent English settlement in the New World, the Commonwealth acknowledged and atoned for its pivotal role in the slavery of Africans; now, therefore, be it

RESOLVED by the House of Delegates, the Senate concurring, That the General Assembly hereby atone for the involuntary servitude of Africans and call for reconciliation among all Virginians; and, be it

RESOLVED FURTHER, That the Clerk of the House transmit a copy of this resolution to the Secretary of the Commonwealth, the Secretary of Education, the Superintendent of Public Instruction, the Executive Director of the State Council of Higher Education, the Chancellor of the Virginia Community College System, and the Executive Director of the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People, Virginia State Chapter, requesting that they further disseminate copies of this resolution to their respective constituents so that they may be apprised of the sense of the General Assembly of Virginia in this matter.44 Their resolution began by noting that slavery dated back to ancient Mesopotamia, following this with nine paragraphs detailing the horrific abuse suffered by African Americans under slavery and five paragraphs detailing the abuses they continued to suffer after slavery ended. Four paragraphs discussed the point of and precedent for apologizing for the past, and then the resolution called for atonement. Public reaction was mixed. Some whites viewed the idea negatively, asking how they could apologize for slavery when they personally never owned slaves. It is not clear whether they were being disingenuous or whether they did not understand the concept of the state apologizing for actions it encouraged in the past. Reaction among black Virginians was more 332 K.D. Walker positive, although this approval was tentative in some quarters, as some questioned the efficacy of such an apology. The General Assembly debated the usefulness and wisdom of such a measure. On 16 January, Delegate Frank Hargrove got his foot wedged securely in his mouth when he said he thought that blacks should “just get over” slavery already; to explain his remarks he asked, “Are we going to force the Jews to apologize for killing Christ?” (He tried to make up for this later by introducing a bill to recognize Juneteenth, the day many use to celebrate the end of slavery, claiming that his beef was with apologies, not with blacks and Jews.) The bills struggled to get out of committee in the Virginia House and Senate.45 On 29 January, the wording was slightly changed. The call for the General Assembly to “atone” for slavery was replaced with a request that the body “acknowledge with contrition the involuntary servitude of Africans,” a change that reflected the anxiety of some lawmakers that the word “atone” might open the door to reparations for slavery. On 3 February, another version of the resolution was introduced to the General Assembly by Delegate John O’Bannon, and this version made it out of committee. The new version began, not with Mesopotamian slavery, but with the colony at Jamestown.

WHEREAS, 2007 marks the 400th anniversary of the first permanent English settlement in the Americas, at Jamestown; and

WHEREAS, the legacies of the Jamestown settlement and the Virginia colony include ideas, institutions, a history distinctive to the American experiment in democracy, and a constellation of liberties enshrined in the Virginia Declaration of Rights and the Virginia and United States Constitutions; and

WHEREAS, the foremost expression of the ideals that bind us together as a people is found in the Declaration of Independence, which proclaims as “self-evident” the truths “that all men are created equal; that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights; that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness”; and

WHEREAS, despite the “self-evident” character of these fundamental principles, the moral standards of liberty and equality have been transgressed during much of Virginia’s and America’s history, and our Commonwealth and nation are striving to fulfill the ideals proclaimed by the founders to secure the “more perfect union” that is the aspiration of our national identity and charter; and

WHEREAS, these transgressions include the maltreatment and exploitation of Native Americans and the immoral institution of human slavery, policies and systems directly antithetical to and irreconcilable with the fundamental principle of human equality and freedom; and

WHEREAS, Native Americans inhabited the land throughout the New World and were the “first people” the early English settlers met upon landing on the shores of North America at Jamestown in 1607; and

WHEREAS, records relating to the early relations between Native Americans and the settlers indicate “the Mattaponi, a part of the powerful Powhatan chiefdom, greeted settlers in 1607 and, along with other Powhatan tribes, were visited by Captain John Smith,” that “the Chickahominy Tribe had early contact with the English settlers due to their proximity to Jamestown,” and that “the Rappahannock Indians, possessing thirteen villages on the south and north sides of the Rappahannock River, first spoke to Captain John Smith in 1608 at their kingstowne, ‘Cat Point Creek’”; and American Nineteenth Century History 333

WHEREAS, Native Americans provided food for the settlers, aiding the survival of 32 settlers during the first winter and later taught them how to grow crops; and

WHEREAS, Native American leaders have worked diligently to preserve and protect their heritage, history, and culture, and when public education was denied Native American children, the leaders ensured their children’s education by sending them to American Indian schools in Oklahoma and Kansas; and

WHEREAS, Virginia enacted laws to restrict the rights and liberties of Native Americans, including their ability to travel, testify in court, and inherit property, and a rigid social code created segregated schools and churches for whites, African Americans, and Native Americans; and

WHEREAS, the Racial Integrity Act of 1924 which institutionalized the “one drop rule,” required a racial description of every person to be recorded at birth and banned interracial marriages, effectively rendering Native Americans with African ancestry extinct, and these policies have destroyed the ability of many of Virginia’s indigenous people to prove continuous existence in order to gain federal recognition and the benefits such recognition confers; and

WHEREAS, slavery, having been sanctioned and perpetuated through the laws of Virginia and the United States, ranks as the most horrendous of all depredations of human rights and violations of our founding ideals in our nation’s history, and the abolition of slavery was followed by systematic discrimination, enforced segregation, and other insidious institutions and practices toward Americans of African descent that were rooted in racism, racial bias, and racial misunderstanding; and

WHEREAS, the most abject apology for past wrongs cannot right them; yet the spirit of true repentance on behalf of a government, and, through it, a people, can promote reconciliation and healing, and avert the repetition of past wrongs and the disregard of manifested injustices; and

WHEREAS, in recent decades, Virginia’s affirmation of the founding ideals of liberty and equality have been made evident by providing some of the nation’s foremost trailblazers for civil rights and electing a grandson of slaves to the Commonwealth’s highest elective office; and

WHEREAS, the story of Virginia’s Native Americans and the enslavement of Africans and their descendants, the human carnage, and the dehumanizing atrocities committed during colonization and slavery, and, moreover, the faith, perseverance, hope, and endless triumphs of Native Americans and African Americans and their significant contributions to this Commonwealth and the nation should be embraced, celebrated, and retold for generations to come; now, therefore, be it 334 K.D. Walker

RESOLVED by the House of Delegates, the Senate concurring, That the General Assembly hereby acknowledge with profound regret the involuntary servitude of Africans and the exploitation of Native Americans, and call for reconciliation among all Virginians; and, be it

RESOLVED FURTHER, That on the occasion of the 400th anniversary of the settlement at Jamestown, the General Assembly call upon the people of the Commonwealth to express acknowledgment and thanksgiving for the contributions of Native Americans and African Americans to the Commonwealth and this nation, and to the propagation of the ideals of liberty, justice, and democracy; and, be it

RESOLVED FINALLY, That the Clerk of the House of Delegates shall post this resolution on the General Assembly’s website.46

A glowing description of the settlement at Jamestown is followed with two paragraphs lauding the US vision of equality and liberty, followed by two paragraphs acknowledging that the US has not always lived up to those ideals, especially in the treatment of Native Americans and African Americans, followed by five paragraphs on the unfair treatment of Native Amer- icans, one on the unfair treatment of both groups, four more paragraphs on the evils of slavery, and an expression of regret. One sponsor of the original resolution, State Senator Henry Marsh, expressed reserva- tion about the new bill, saying that it “doesn’t focus on slavery and the treatment of Africans. It focuses on all violations of human rights. There’s a difference in emphasis and it gets away from the purpose of the resolution.”47 For Senator Marsh, well-known in Virginia for speaking his mind on controversial issues, this was mild criticism, and indeed the resolution hit no more roadblocks and passed the General Assembly unanimously, the language of regret and the broader focus even roping in a “yea” vote from Delegate Hargrove. After the resolution passed, it caught national media attention, and Virginia was touted as the first state to apologize for slavery. Other states followed with similar expressions of regret. Compared with the above history of Confederate History Month, this was mild stuff indeed. There were complaints about the need for an apology beforehand, and later, more complaints about the weakness of the apology, and there were expressions of dismay over and support for Delegate Hargrove’s remarks, but comparatively, very little controversy surrounded the expression of regret.48 While the history and sentiments found in the expression of regret, even while watered down, present a step forward from the presentation of slavery in the early Confederate History Month proclamations, the General Assembly backed away from either fully describ- ing slavery, or fully apologizing for it. Instead of embracing the original and brutal depiction of slavery originally proposed, lawmakers substituted some self-congratulatory language about lofty egalitarian ideals. They also merged a discussion of slavery with a discussion of wrongs done to Native Americans, as if all wrongs perpetuated by the state on nonwhite peoples are interchangeable, as if in all its days of deliberation, the legislature of Virginia has only one moment in which it can consider expressing regret over the state’s past racial offenses. Finally, the resolution actually slights African Americans. While it mentions the aid given by Native Americans to the early colonists of Jamestown, and the efforts of Native Americans to better their lives under oppression, it makes no mention of the contribution of slave labor toward building the American economy, nor does it mention slave resistance, revolts, and the efforts of African Americans to better their lives under oppression. Slaves American Nineteenth Century History 335 are acted upon, but they do not act. Horrible things were done to them, but they are not a special case—others were also equally wronged, and finally, the slaves are presented as a lesser example of how to stand up to misfortune. Underneath this giant step forward, then, is the same hesitation found in the Confederate History Month proclamations—the sense that delving too closely into the truth of slavery will suggest white complicity and guilt. Certainly the resistance of some white Virginians to this mild expression of regret shows a desire to distance modern white identity from the slave past. Whites cannot claim a pure past once slavery enters the debate; both the proclamations and the expression of regret show a desire to distance modern day society from the horror of the past. There is no way to deny this past, however, and also include African Americans in a modern collectivity that so heavily defines itself through commemoration. This then is still the zero-sum game, played to a more satisfying and unifying conclusion, but showing that the dominant culture resists a reckoning with the legacy of slavery.

Acknowledgements The author would like to thank Bob Zussman, Jay Demerath and Dee Royster for their helpful comments on earlier drafts of this paper.

Notes 1. Hardy, “NAACP Offers Compromise,” A1, A10; Wilder, “Frank Talks about Race,” F3. 2. Allen, Certificate of Recognition. 3. Hardy, “NAACP Denounces Allen,” A1. 4. Ibid. 5. Lazarus, “Allen’s Rebel Act,” A1, A4; Richmond Free Press, “Rebel Act,” A8. 6. Lazarus, “Allen’s Rebel Act,” A4; Hardy, “Allen Apologizes,” A1. 7. Williams, “Proclamations on Confederacy Need Sensitivity,” B1. 8. They also buried a copy of the newly retired state song, “Carry Me Back to Old Virginie.” Allen had signed a General Assembly bill that retired the song, which had offended many people with its lyrics about nostalgic “darkies.” Hardy, “NAACP, War Re-enactors Stage Rallies,” B5. 9. Ibid., B5. 10. Ibid.; also Edney, “Funeral at Capitol,” A1, A7; Wilder, “Frank Talks about Race,” F3. 11. Richmond Times-Dispatch, “Poll: Confederate Observance Supported,” B1. 12. Philips, Letter, A8. 13. Hallman, “Black History Month Effort,” F2; Hardy, “Gilmore to Change Confederate Month,” A1; Richmond Free Press, “Gilmore Breaks with Allen,” A1. 14. Ibid., A1; Hardy, “Gilmore Not Honoring Southerners,” B1. 15. Gilmore, “Confederate History Month.” 16. Richeson, Letter, A10; Morris, Letter, A10; Hardy, “Gilmore’s Decree Still Draws Fire,” A1; Whit- ley, “More Criticism, Some Praise,” B1. 17. Williams, “Why All the Fuss?,” B1; Whitley, “More Criticism, Some Praise,” B1; Richmond Free Press, “Gilmore Rhetoric,” A10. 18. Richmond Free Press, “Rebel Invitation,” A10. 19. Whitley, “More Criticism, Some Praise,” B1. 20. Maier, Unmasterable Past, 14. 21. Fischer, “Blacks Set to Denounce Gilmore Proclamation,” B1, B9. 22. Richmond Free Press, “Activities in City,” A14; Paige Chargois, “Every Group Has the Right,” F7. 23. Fischer, “Community’s Displeasure,” B1; Richmond Times-Dispatch, “Brothers under the Skin,” A 12; Richmond Free Press, “Saturday Boycott of Malls,” A1, A10; Richmond Free Press, “Mall Boycott Sends Message,” A1. 336 K.D. Walker

24. Salim Khalfani said he said the NAACP would engage in some sort of “direct action,” which the media interpreted narrowly as “tourism boycott.” King Salim Khalfani, Personal interview, 6 June 2001. 25. Richmond Free Press, “Gilmore Honors Confederacy,” A1; Hardy, “Gilmore Hopes to Stop Boycott,” A1; Richmond Free Press, “Saturday Boycott of Malls,” A1, A10; Hardy, “Gilmore’s Outreach in Danger,” A1, A10. 26. Plans for marking the 400th anniversary of the settlement in Jamestown (1607–2007) were forming under the name “Celebration 2007,” which local Native American groups found in questionable taste; the name was changed. 27. Hardy, “NAACP Offers Compromise,” A1, A10; Hardy, “Gilmore Averts Boycott,” A1, A11; Richmond Free Press, “African Group Apologizes,” A7; Richmond Free Press, “Truce in Boycott Fight,” A1, A10; Richmond Free Press, “Seeds of Discord,” A1, A10; Yancy, “History Month Proposal,” A10. 28. Richmond Times-Dispatch, “Bottom Line,” A10. 29. James Gilmore, “Proclamation in Remembrance.” 30. Hardy, “Proclamation Rewritten,” B1, B9. 31. Richmond Times-Dispatch, “Proclamation,” F6. 32. Vaughan, “Gilmore Erases Rebel Month,” A1. 33. Hardy, “Proclamation Rewritten,” B1, B9; and Hardy, “NAACP Extends Praise,” B1, B4. 34. Lamb, Letter, A14. 35. Reardon, Letter, A14. 36. Akin, “Group Fights Proclamation,” B2. 37. Whitley, “Hopefuls Split on Proclamation,” B2. 38. Hardy, “NAACP Extends Praise,” B1, B4. 39. Richmond Times-Dispatch, “Virginia Division Sons,” B5. 40. Akin, “Group Fights Proclamation,” B2. 41. Hinkle, “Common Mainspring Winds Both Sides,” A11. 42. Fischer, “‘Tear down the Walls’,” A1; McAllister, “If We’re Inclined to Look,” B1. 43. Fischer, “Drawing on Grief,” B1; Williams, “Trip into Flag-Dotted Americana,” H4. 44. House Joint Resolution No. 728, introduced 10 January 2007; this and subsequent bill texts all from Virginia General Assembly Legislative Tracking System, http://leg1.state.va.us/lis.htm (accessed 4 September 2007). 45. Meola, “Local Residents Split,” A.1; Stallsmith, “Proposed Aology Is Now Broader,” A.10. 46. House Joint Resolution No. 728, agreed to by the House 24 February 2007. 47. Stallsmith, “Slavery Apology Passes House,” A.1. 48. Williams, “Power in One Man’s Reconciliation,” B.1.

References Akin, Paige. “Group Fights Proclamation: Ad Describes ‘True History of the South’.” Richmond Times-Dispatch, 8 April 2001, B2. Allen, George. Certificate of Recognition. Confederate History and Heritage Month. 1997. http:// www.cstone.net/∼wmm/SCV-VIRGINIA/div-cmdr.htm. Chargois, Paige. “Every Group Has the Right to Celebrate Its History.” Richmond Times-Dispatch, 9 April 2000, F7. Edney, Hazel Trice. “Funeral at Capitol.” Richmond Free Press, 1–3 May 1997, A1, A7. Fischer, Meredith. “Blacks Set to Denounce Gilmore Proclamation.” Richmond Times-Dispatch, 5 April 2000, B1, B9. ———. “Community’s Displeasure: Confederate History Month Protest Planned in County.” Richmond Times-Dispatch, 23 March 2000, B1. ———. “Drawing on Grief: ‘This Is How I Dealt with September 11th’.” Richmond Times-Dispatch, 16 December 2001, B1. ———. “‘Tear down the Walls’: Confederate Heritage Advocate, Black Bishop Put Differences Aside.” Richmond Times-Dispatch, 27 August 2001, A1. American Nineteenth Century History 337

Gilmore, James. “Confederate History Month.” 9 April 1998, April 1999, April 2000. James Gilmore Archives, Library of Virginia, Richmond, VA. http://www.lva.lib.va.us/archives/gilmore/press/ procs/00chmpr.htm. ———. “A Proclamation in Remembrance of the Sacrifices and Honor of All Virginians Who Served in the Civil War.” 20 March 2001. James Gilmore Archives, Library of Virginia, Richmond, VA. http://www.lva.lib.va.us/archives/gilmore/press/procs/cwpr0320.htm. Hallman, Randy. “Black History Month Effort: A Yearlong Project of the Year.” Richmond Times- Dispatch, 8 March 1998, F2. Hardy, Michael. “Allen Apologizes For Confederate Month Decree: NAACP Not Satisfied, Plans Demonstration.” Richmond Times-Dispatch, 12 April 1997, A1. ———. “Gilmore Averts Boycott: Talk with NAACP Officials Spurs Reconsideration of Proclamation.” Richmond Times-Dispatch, 11 May 2000, A1, A11. ———. “Gilmore Hopes to Stop Boycott: Tourism, Diversity at Stake, He Argues.” Richmond Times- Dispatch, 2 May 2000, A1. ———. “Gilmore Not Honoring Southerners, Group Alleges.” Richmond Times-Dispatch, 8 April 1998, B1. ———. “Gilmore’s Decree Still Draws Fire: Both Sides Denounce ‘Inclusive’ Proclamation.” Richmond Times-Dispatch, 10 April 1998, A1. ———. “Gilmore’s Outreach in Danger: Proclamation Spurs Protests by NAACP.” Richmond Times- Dispatch, 7 May 2000, A1, A10. ———. “Gilmore to Change Confederate Month: Governor Vows He Won’t Repeat Error.” Richmond Times-Dispatch, 27 March 1998, A1. ———. “NAACP Denounces Allen: Governor Proclaimed April Confederate History Month.” Richmond Times-Dispatch, 11 April 1997, A1. ———. “NAACP Extends Praise / Gilmore Has Done ‘The Right Thing’.” Richmond Times-Dispatch, 22 March 2001, B1, B4. ———. “NAACP Offers Compromise: Tourism Boycott Might Be Avoided.” Richmond Times- Dispatch, 10 May 2000, A1, A10. ———. “NAACP, War Re-enactors Stage Rallies at Capitol.” Richmond Times-Dispatch, May 1, 1997, B5. ———. “Proclamation Rewritten: Gilmore Alters Confederate Month Idea.” Richmond Times- Dispatch, 21 March 2001, B1, B9. Hinkle, A. Barton. “A Common Mainspring Winds Both Sides.” Richmond Times-Dispatch, 10 April 2001, A11. Lamb, Robert H. Letter. Richmond Times-Dispatch, 4 April 2001, A14. Lazarus, Jeremy M. “Allen’s Rebel Act Sparks Fire, March Date.” Richmond Free Press, 17–19 April 1997, A1, A4. Maier, Charles S. The Unmasterable Past: History, Holocaust, and German National Identity. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. 1988. McAllister, Ray. “If We’re Inclined to Look, Kidd and Glenn Gave Us Hope.” Richmond Times- Dispatch, 28 August 2001, B1. Meola, Olympia. “Local Residents Split over Value of Slavery Apology.” Richmond Times-Dispatch, 4 February 2007, A1. Morris, Jean. Letter. Richmond Times-Dispatch, 4 April 1998, A10. Philips, Randall H. Letter. Richmond Times-Dispatch, 12 May 1997, A8. Pugh, Lloyd G. Letter. Richmond Times-Dispatch, 4 April 2001, A14. Reardon, Michael T. Letter. Richmond Times-Dispatch, 4 April 2001, A14. Richeson, Raymond M. Letter. Richmond Times-Dispatch, 13 April 1998, A10. Richmond Free Press. “Activities in City to Celebrate Union Victory, Liberation.” 30 March–1 April 2000, A14. ———. “African Group Apologizes, But Rebel Supporter Doesn’t.” 4–6 May 2000, A7. ———. “Gilmore Breaks with Allen on Rebels, But …” 2–4 April 1998, A1. 338 K.D. Walker

———. “Gilmore Honors Confederacy: NAACP Leads Attack on the State Position.” 6–8 April 2000, A1. ———. “Gilmore Rhetoric.” 9–11 April 1998, A10. ———. “Mall Boycott Sends Message.” 6–8 April 2000, A1. ———. “Rebel Act.” 17–19 April 1997, A8. ———. “Rebel Invitation.” 23–5 April 1998, A10. ———. “Saturday Boycott of Malls: Confederate Proposal Sparks County Protest.” 3 March–1 April 2000, A1, A10. ———. “Seeds of Discord.” 11–13 May 2000, A1, A10. ———. “Truce in Boycott Fight: Gilmore, State NAACP Meet, Vow to Talk Again.” 11–13 May 2000, A1, A10. Richmond Times-Dispatch. “The Bottom Line.” 18 January 2001, A10. ———. “Brothers under the Skin.” 1 April 2000, A12. ———. “Poll: Confederate Observance Supported—Critics Say Results Flawed By Wording of Question.” 10 May 1997, B1. ———. “The Proclamation.” 25 March 2001, F6. ———. “Virginia Division Sons of Confederate Veterans General Order: Confederate History and Heritage Month.” Paid advertisement. April 2001, B5. Stallsmith, Pamela. “Proposed Apology Is Now Broader.” Richmond Times-Dispatch, 1 February 2007, A10. ———. “Slavery apology passes House.” Richmond Times-Dispatch, 3 February 2007, A1. Vaughan, Steve. “Gilmore Erases Rebel Month.” Richmond Free Press, 22–4 March 2001, A1. Whitley, Tyler. “Hopefuls Split on Proclamation: Warner, Earley for; Hager Against.” Richmond Times-Dispatch, 24 March 2001, B2. ———. “More Criticism, Some Praise for Decree.” Richmond Times-Dispatch, 11 April 1998, B1. ———. “Text Altered in Proposed Slavery Apology.” Richmond Times-Dispatch, 30 January 2007, A1. Wilder, L. Douglas. “Frank Talks about Race Need to Be Conducted in Open.” Richmond Times- Dispatch, May 4, 1997, F3. Williams, Michael Paul. “A Power in One Man’s Reconciliation.” Richmond Times-Dispatch, 16 March 2007, B1. ———. “Proclamations on Confederacy Need Sensitivity.” Richmond Times-Dispatch, 14 April 1997, B1. ———. “Trip into Flag-Dotted Americana Stirs Conflict of Heart and History.” Richmond Times- Dispatch, 7 November 2001, H4. ———. “Why All the Fuss over the Decree?” Richmond Times-Dispatch, 13 April 1998, B1. Yancy, Preston M. “A History Month Proposal.” Richmond Free Press, 25–7 May 2000, A10.