|
 n Tuesday, Virginia
Gov. James S. Gilmore III replaced his annual Confederate History
Month proclamation with "A
Proclamation in Remembrance of the Sacrifices and Honor of All Virginians
Who Served in the Civil War." The story made the front page of both
the Washington Post and the Washington Times.
The announcement was not well received by those referred to in a
Post headline as "Confederacy supporters" and, in the Times
story, as "Southern heritage groups." (The difference in nomenclature
is predictable: The Post is establishment liberal, and the
Times courts a conservative Virginia readership.) "Gilmore
has knuckled under to the NAACP," said Bragdon Bowling of Richmond,
the second-highest officer in the state chapter of the Sons of Confederate
Veterans. Bowling also declared: "This is an outright betrayal of
all Confederate soldiers in Virginia," a quote the Post found
understandably impossible to resist.
The Times likewise found Mr. Bowling quotable in his criticism
of Gilmore's respectful nod toward those who joined the Union forces:
"This is an army which invaded Virginia and killed thousands of
its citizens and burned farms, and killed livestock and raped women
— this is what he's honoring here." Remember the scene in Blazing
Saddles when, in a similar tirade, the women and cattle get
switched around?
Probably everything that Mr. Bowling says is true. Certainly Gov.
Gilmore has been under pressure from the NAACP, the state chapter
of which last year threatened a statewide tourism boycott because
of the governor's earlier designation of Confederate History Month.
I have a lot of sympathy for those who want to recognize the heroism
of Confederate soldiers, and even more for those who have a reflexive
and negative reaction to the NAACP's pronouncements these days.
My father's parents were from Mississippi, and my parents and I
are Texans, and in all my years growing up and playing army I can
never remember choosing to be a Yankee rather than a Rebel.
As for the NAACP, there was a time when that organization did good
work, but no more, and it has become essentially an arm of the Democratic
party. For instance, the NAACP could just as easily have threatened
Maryland with a boycott. After all, the organization is actually
based in Baltimore, and the state song, "Maryland, My Maryland,"
is notoriously anti-Union, beginning, "The despot's heel is on thy
shore, Maryland!" and ending, "Huzza, she spurns the Northern scum!"
But Maryland is liberal, with a Democratic governor, and conservative
Virginia has a Republican governor, so guess who's targeted?
All that said, however, Gov. Gilmore's new proclamation takes the
right course — and for exactly the same reason that the NAACP
is so often these days headed in the wrong direction: It seeks to
unite rather than divide. Those interested can read the proclamation
for themselves, which is accessible
here.
The proclamation extols the bravery of those who fought for the
Confederacy as well as those who fought for the Union. Virginians
were in both camps, and every Southern schoolboy knows — or
knew — that for Robert E. Lee himself it was an agonizing decision.
Pride of place is given to the Confederates, with Lee and Stonewall
Jackson mentioned first in the proclamation, followed by examples
of those who fought for the Union. The proclamation, while condemning
slavery, even acknowledges that in the war North and South alike
fought "to protect what each side believed to be threatened rights
and imperiled liberty."
Apparently one of the most controversial passages in the proclamation
is its statement that "had there been no slavery there would have
been no war." This angers the Southern heritage groups/Confederacy
supporters because it is their belief that the war was not about
slavery per se but about how much power the federal government should
have vis-à-vis the states.
Well, sure, the South believed the North was a threat to legitimate
state powers, but, no, if there hadn't been the matter of slavery
to force the issue then the dispute would not have led to secession.
Would there sooner or later have arisen some other dispute to force
the issue? Nobody can know.
So the proposition that slavery was the "but, for" cause of the
Civil War is in a narrow sense undeniably true. On the other hand,
the statement that "had there been no slavery there would have been
no war" is sheer speculation — on par with the Saturday
Night Live skit that asked, "Would it have shortened World War
II if Eleanor Roosevelt could fly?"
It was, in other words, silly for the proclamation to get into this
quagmire. But it redeems itself by the way in which it concludes.
The proclamation declares that the meeting between Lee and Grant
at Appomattox "set the Nation on its course toward reconciliation"
and that "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 forevermore."
This let's-move-on-as-one-America exhortation is exactly the right
note to hit.
Last week I wrote about the use of Indian mascots by sports teams.
Not only is it politically incorrect to have such mascots, but our
public-school textbooks now stress to the nth degree the injustices
that Indians suffered. And the reaction of most Americans likely
runs like this: Yes, certainly, the Indians were treated badly.
They fought bravely for their way of life and no one should blame
them for that or minimize their suffering. But at some point the
past must be released. It is fine to have pride in one's ancestors,
but we are all Americans now and so let's talk about something else.
You see where I'm going with this, don't you? Just substitute Confederates
for Indians. Yes, Confederates were brave. Yes, they suffered enormously.
Yes, they were just fighting for their way of life and for what
they believed in. But they lost, and as a nation we can't change
that or be sorry that they lost, any more than we can give the country
back to the Indians or wish that they had won.
How would a Southern conservative feel if an Indian group wanted
to fly an American-Indian pride flag on top of a state capitol?
How would he feel if a governor issued a proclamation that honored
the Indian dead but said nothing about the settlers, or left anyone
with the distinct impression that, in the Indian Wars, the wrong
side had won?
This is not to say that southerners shouldn't be proud of their
Confederate forebears or that Indians shouldn't be proud of their
ancestors. But neither one should expect there to be official endorsement
of their ancestors alone or of their point of view, nor should they
object when official acknowledgment of their heritage is tempered
with a call to reconciliation and moving on.
Two final points, one for Gov. Gilmore and one for the Indians.
The one-America theme that Gilmore endorses in his proclamation
is a two-way street. He should bear it in mind when the NAACP comes
knocking again and asks for racial preferences in state hiring,
contracting, and university admissions. The governor has been squishy
on these issues of late, which is especially troubling since he
is now also chairman of the Republican National Committee. The lesson
applies with even greater force to reparations.
As for the Indians, they should take a leaf from the Confederates'
book when it comes to sports teams. The latter don't have their
feelings hurt when a team is named the Rebels. To the contrary,
they love the opportunity that it provides them to stress their
proud heritage. The Indians should do likewise for the Braves and
Warriors.
|
