Memorials, Museums, and Memories
Most of you are familiar with the crisis surrounding the suffocation and decline at the Museum of the Confederacy in Richmond, VA. You may also be aware that there has been a solution proposed that would create three separate MOC locations (one here near Fredericksburg). This in turn has ignited a debate over controversial issues such as how to fund the museum and what to call it. Regardless of how this solution manifests itself, the hot-button question around here has been “Why do we still have museums and memorials to the Confederacy anyway?”
It’s no secret that I’ve been a loud and proud supporter (both in the press and in private) of protecting, preserving, and presenting the history of the C.S.A. for future generations. I also have begun to acknowledge the need to broaden the scope of Civil War history in the South to include all opposing views of the war effort. This epiphany came as a result of my research for my upcoming book on Fredericksburg’s historic churches. It was an eye-opener for me to say the least.
Most importantly, I believe that one group’s perspective should not outweigh the other, and neither should be shamed or ignored in favor of another. Simply stated, Confederate history and heritage is just sacred and valid as that of the Unionist and/or African-American population. This includes the good – the bad – and the ugly. There is honor, and there is disgrace in virtually every aspect of America’s story.
For example, take a trip to my favorite American’s house, Monticello. There, the great Virginian Thomas Jefferson is BOTH revered for all of his brilliant contributions, and remembered as a slaveholder. One negative aspect of Jefferson’s life does not necessarily affect the admiration of the other and they are both presented in a fair and balance manner. That same notion of ‘duality’ exists in the history of the Confederate States of America, as well as the life-stories of its iconic participants such as Robert E. Lee and “Stonewall” Jackson.
In regards to what is referred to as biased or revisionist history, I believe that it is both understandable and acceptable that certain geographic locations have a memory that may differ greatly with other groups remembering the same events. Is that not what perspectives are supposed to be? You see things one way, and I see them as another. Both are still honest and sincere. Therefore, isn’t it possible to have memories that don’t necessarily match, but are equally valid and justified? I think so. That my friend is why it is so important for us to have museums and memorials for ALL of these groups, especially ones that do not exist anymore, just like the Confederacy.
The text below was taken from the Bishop Richard H. Wilmer's The Recent Past: From a Southern Standpoint (Reminiscences of a Grandfather), 1887 which is found in the Sons of Confederate Veterans Chaplain's Handbook. It outlines the necessity to preserve historical perspective:
"One chief reason for giving these reminiscences to the public is that I may help to keep sacred in the memory of the rising generation the traditions of their fathers. A new generation ordinarily little cares for, and little acquaints itself with, the past. This results in part from the fact that ordinarily parents concern themselves too little with the opinions of their children on matters past, present, or to come. I do not share this indifference.
I have a special fear that our young people, as they recede farther and farther from our times, will gather their views of the recent past from partisan histories than from sacredly preserved traditions. The school books and histories of our times are, as a general rule, from Northern sources: their authors naturally look at all these matters with other eyes than ours.
I cannot endure to think that any descendant of mine shall open, say, a catechism, and find Benedict Arnold, Jefferson Davis, and Robert E. Lee chosen out to exemplify Treason and Rebellion... I want our young people to know what I know, -- that the two men last named in that list of 'traitors' were men who exemplified through life every trait of honor and Loyalty.
Nor can I endure to think that my grandsons shall be set down to read histories which tell them their ancestors were 'tyrants to their servants,' 'rebels against their government,' and 'traitors to their country.' So far as in me lies, this shall never be; and shame to every man who loves not to pluck the nettles from the graves of his sires, and strew them with flowers!"
Before I forget (I’m literally in the process this afternoon of coordinating 2008 interviews with Mort Kunstler, Col. Keith Gibson of VMI, and filmmaker Ken Carpenter) I wanted to share some wonderful materials that have recently been added over on the Museum of the Confederacy’s website. As part of their new online Lee and Jackson galleries, which contain a wealth of photos, letters, and exhibits, are the entire collection of letters from the 
I had planned on doing one of those hokey ‘Best of 2007’ lists ONLY if I had a day in which nothing else meaningful came to mind. Well… I have to say [yawn] that the lack of sleep is finally catching up with me and at the risk of making mistakes writing something ‘publishable,’ I would much rather have a little fun and bestow upon my friends and associates some meaningless accolades. As a result, my wonderfully drowsy and sleep-deprived mind has spawned the first annual Golden Kepi’s. This highly coveted award symbolizes the best in the field of history-related contributions. Congrats to all the 2007 winners: