Rep. Bob Good Calls for Hearing on Naming Commission

Rep. Bob Good

by Donald Smith

The Virginia congressman who represents Appomattox, where the Civil War started to end,* wants the House of Representatives to examine the impacts of Congress’ attempt to grapple with the legacy of that war — an attempt that could lay the groundwork for the legacies of Confederate generals and soldiers to be deemed unworthy of public respect in American heritage and in modern-day American society.

Bob Good, representative from Virginia’s 5th Congressional District and chairman of the House Freedom Caucus, issued this press release on Friday, February 2.  It calls for the House Oversight Committee to convene a hearing to review the operations and decisions of the Naming Commission. 

Congress should conduct a thorough review to determine the true nature of the efforts to remove historic statues and memorials. Historical sites are meant to preserve moments that are critical to the growth and healing of our nation and should not be subject to the destructive ruse of political wokeness. I am calling for a full accounting of the actions taken by the Naming Commission so the American people can see for themselves how the Biden Administration used their tax dollars, and if they did so to arbitrarily erase our history.

Good said that the “need for proper accountability and oversight regarding the rationale behind the Commission’s deliberations” warranted a hearing.

The Virginia Council endorsed Good’s call for a hearing with this press release the following day. It said that the commission “has served as an agent of historical desecration, not cultural progress.”  

The Naming Commission has extended its influence well beyond proposing new base and ship names, causing a ripple effect that has resulted in the removal of statues, paintings from library walls, and museum exhibits. Battle streamers were expelled from regimental colors of honor, memorial walks saw bricks pried up, and construction cranes yanked memorials of the deceased out of cemeteries. The shocking breadth of the commission’s actions caught many Americans off guard, fostering a perception that cancel culture and the DEI agenda have run rampant through Defense Department assets. Congressman Good’s brave leadership, alongside the bipartisan efforts of others, is crucial in upholding Virginia’s rich historical significance and cultural traditions.

“Concerns about overreach call for a reassessment and correction,” said the Council.

The Naming Commission claimed that it wasn’t trying to erase history.  This statement is from the Preface to its final report:

In its work following the provisions of the FY21 NDAA (National Defense Authorization Act), the Naming Commission has often heard through its engagements that removing Confederates from Department of Defense commemoration constitutes ‘erasing history.’ The Naming Commission shares this sensitivity to protecting the past. Americans need to acknowledge all of our past, letting the entirety of our nation’s historic actions inform the purpose of our present initiatives. Changing what is commemorated, however, is not the equivalent of erasing history … the American Civil War remains one of our most prominently told national stories and occupies an incredibly ‘safe’ spot in our national historical memory. As such, the Naming Commission is confident that their decisions to identify these nine bases for renaming and recommend new names for them are emphatically steps that neither exclude history nor expunge our past.

If the commission had confined its efforts and recommendations to base and ship names, it might have a point. But it didn’t. (Arlington National Cemetery is a military base named for a Confederate general? Hey…who knew?) Instead, it made sweeping determinations that, if adopted by American society, might make it virtually impossible to show any respect for the heritage and heroism of any Confederate in the public square.  

Think that’s an exaggeration? Here is an excerpt from a December 19 opinion by U.S. District Court Judge Rossie Alston. In his opinion, Judge Alston canceled his Temporary Restraining Order and allowed the dismantling of the Reconciliation Memorial to proceed. This is from page 1 of his order (emphasis added):

This case essentially attempts to place this Court at the center of a great debate between individuals extolling the virtues, romanticism and history of the Old South and equally passionate individuals, with government endorsement, who believe that art accentuating what they believe is a harsh depiction of a time when a certain race of people were enslaved and treated like property is not deserving of a memorial at a place of refuge, honor and national recognition.

“With government endorsement.”

It appears possible, even probable, that a federal official has interpreted the Naming Commission’s recommendations –and Congress’ approval of them –as an official U.S. government endorsement of the idea that the Reconciliation Memorial should be viewed first and foremost as a Lost Cause totem. Those people who cheered as Lee’s statue was fed into that Tennessee furnace will undoubtedly claim that Congress has spoken, and agrees with them. Look for them to try to extrapolate Judge Alston’s assessment to all Confederate memorials — most of which were built and paid for by the relatives and neighbors of Confederate soldiers — and cast them all as Lost Cause symbols, first and foremost. Look also for them to deem any commemorations of Confederates in public as no longer acceptable, because Congress says so. Was this really Congress’ intent? We should all hope that it wasn’t. 

Civil wars are different than wars between nations. Civil wars literally do pit brother against brother. When they end, the divided nation needs to find ways to heal. Unless the winning side intends to scourge the losing side and banish or subjugate its population, the postwar nation needs to find ways to honor the valor and good intentions of combatants on both sides. It needs to leverage the strengths of all the people who were once foes, and channel those strengths into building the postwar nation. E pluribus unum: Out of many, one. The veterans’ organization of the Union Army, the Grand Army of the Republic, was not overjoyed when it first saw Moses Ezekiel’s Reconciliation Memorial. It had many of the qualms about it that many people have today. But it accepted it — or, at least agreed to tolerate it — as a price of reconciliation.  

The Naming Commission’s judgments and recommendations show a spirit of scourging, not acceptance. As we approach our nation’s 250th anniversary, is that the spirit we want to use as we review and reconsider ALL aspects of our nation’s past, and what our enduring national legacy should be? The Naming Commission affair has opened a Pandora’s Box. Congressman Good’s hearing, if Congress holds it, can help us identify some of the negative side-effects of this affair, remedy them and close this box.

(*The major fighting portion of the Civil War didn’t end at Appomattox. It ended a few weeks later in North Carolina, when Confederate General Joseph Johnston surrendered his army to Union General William T. Sherman.)

Donald Smith was raised in Richmond. 


Share this article



ADVERTISEMENT

(comments below)



ADVERTISEMENT

(comments below)


Comments

90 responses to “Rep. Bob Good Calls for Hearing on Naming Commission”

  1. Hopefully he will right the wrong of the US Army naming helicopters after those people who fought against the US Government, lost said fight, and actually enslaved others.

    1. Donald Smith Avatar
      Donald Smith

      You raise an excellent point. If all signs of the Confederacy have to be scourged from DOD facilities because Confederates kept slaves and fought against the U.S. Army, then you’re obligated to apply the same standard to Native American names, too. Or explain why you’re applying a different standard. Congressman Good’s hearing will allow the Naming Commission members to answer that question.

      1. There was the indian confederacy under Tecumseh whose goal was to push us interlopers back into the ocean.

        https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tecumseh%27s_confederacy

        Here’s a list of memorials to Tecumseh that clearly deed expunging. A confederacy is a confederacy is a confederacy after all. We seem to be discriminating against native Americans by excluding them from the current crusade.

        https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_memorials_to_Tecumseh

        William Tecumseh Sherman is problematic too. What will the naming commission do about that? Puts a whole different light on his march to the sea.

      2. There was the indian confederacy under Tecumseh whose goal was to push us interlopers back into the ocean.

        https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tecumseh%27s_confederacy

        Here’s a list of memorials to Tecumseh that clearly need expunging. A confederacy is a confederacy is a confederacy after all. We seem to be discriminating against native Americans by excluding them from the current crusade.

        https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_memorials_to_Tecumseh

        William Tecumseh Sherman is problematic too. What will the naming commission do about that? Puts a whole different light on his march to the sea.

        1. Matt Adams Avatar

          We don’t dare bring up him inviting all those hunters so eradicate the bison so he could move the natives to reservations.

        2. Matt Adams Avatar

          We don’t dare bring up him inviting all those hunters so eradicate the bison so he could move the natives to reservations.

    2. Eric the half a troll Avatar
      Eric the half a troll

      Yes, hopefully they will stop the misappropriation of Native American cultures in the military. That would be a sensible move.

    3. Eric the half a troll Avatar
      Eric the half a troll

      Yes, hopefully they will stop the misappropriation of Native American cultures in the military. That would be a sensible move.

      1. Nancy Naive Avatar
        Nancy Naive

        Fort Rommel seems appropriate.

  2. Eric the half a troll Avatar
    Eric the half a troll

    “Historical sites are meant to preserve moments that are critical to the growth and healing of our nation…”

    So the Lost Cause itself should be preserved as a historic “moment” now…

    1. Donald Smith Avatar
      Donald Smith

      It’s interesting that the Naming Commission did not define what the Lost Cause is. It’s standard procedure in government proceedings to define key terms. The Lost Cause is being used to justify all sorts of attacks on Confederate heritage. OK, then…what exactly IS the Lost Cause?

      If you declare someone guilty of a crime, they at least deserve to know the specifics of the crime—right? Statutes spell out, for example, what constitutes manslaughter versus what constitutes murder. Those specifications constrain prosecutors and judges from abusing justice. You can’t convict someone of murder if the actions of the defendant don’t fit the legal definition of murder.

      What constitutes the “Lost Cause?” Perhaps the Naming Commission didn’t define it because it didn’t want to be constrained. That’s an effective way of operating; it’s also other-than-honorable.

    2. Nancy Naive Avatar
      Nancy Naive

      Statues to the scab.

    3. Nancy Naive Avatar
      Nancy Naive

      Statues to the scab.

    4. Donald Smith Avatar
      Donald Smith

      It’s interesting that the Naming Commission did not define what the Lost Cause is. It’s standard procedure in government proceedings to define key terms. The Lost Cause is being used to justify all sorts of attacks on Confederate heritage. OK, then…what exactly IS the Lost Cause?

      If you declare someone guilty of a crime, they at least deserve to know the specifics of the crime—right? Statutes spell out, for example, what constitutes manslaughter versus what constitutes murder. Those specifications constrain prosecutors and judges from abusing justice. You can’t convict someone of murder if the actions of the defendant don’t fit the legal definition of murder.

      What constitutes the “Lost Cause?” Perhaps the Naming Commission didn’t define it because it didn’t want to be constrained. That’s an effective way of operating; it’s also other-than-honorable.

      1. Chip Gibson Avatar
        Chip Gibson

        In my opinion, the “Lost Cause” is what the Commonwealth of Virginia may very well become, perhaps already is – although, I have not yet given up on her. She has a rich and important history to consider, before erased entirely.

        I do believe that debate within the General Assembly should include a provocative suggestion that the name of the Commonwealth be changed. The current name, as has been since founded, is colonial and monarchical. How offensive…. And, when most rise up to defend Virginia, by name, and insist that the current name remain (a really good thing), then perhaps that logic may apply elsewhere in current misguided aggressions and misuse of logic and relevance.

        1. walter smith Avatar
          walter smith

          And, to your point about the name of the Commonwealth…
          In a General Assembly controlled by the party for which the single most important thing is the right to kill the baby, wouldn’t VIRGINia be offensive? Judgmental? Victorianly prudish? How dare you diss my right to sex like a goat in heat!

      2. Eric the half a troll Avatar
        Eric the half a troll

        “If you declare someone guilty of a crime, they at least deserve to know the specifics of the crime—right?”

        Well, I don’t think anyone ever suggested that supporting Lost Cause monuments is a crime. There is a plethora of material available that discusses the history of the Lost Cause movement. Denialism does not further the case for these monuments.

    5. Nancy Naive Avatar
      Nancy Naive

      “Now where’d I leave my Cause? Boy! Fetch me a Cause!”

      “Sorry Massa, but it just up and got Lost!”

      1. Donald Smith Avatar
        Donald Smith

        (Golf clap)

  3. James Wyatt Whitehead Avatar
    James Wyatt Whitehead

    I would like to see Good investigate Devon Henry. At the very least the public should know how much money was paid to Henry’s wrecking crew for the dismantling of the Arlington Monument.

  4. Eric the half a troll Avatar
    Eric the half a troll

    “When they end, the divided nation needs to find ways to heal”

    If you still consider the US divided from our civil war, statues will not heal you.

    1. Donald Smith Avatar
      Donald Smith

      I don’t. I never said I did. But in the late 1890s, when the Reconciliation Memorial was erected, our nation hadn’t healed yet. You DO get that, right?

      1. Eric the half a troll Avatar
        Eric the half a troll

        “I don’t”

        So if our nation is healed, the statues no longer serve that purpose (if they ever did). Their actual purpose (to perpetuate the “heritage” of the rebellion) appears to be alive and well (judging by the articles and commentary here on BR, at least).

        1. Donald Smith Avatar
          Donald Smith

          Communities that want to remove a statue that they own should be allowed to do so. Here I part company with many of my Confederate heritage colleagues. I don’t support state laws that prevent a city or town from removing a statue that it owns. IMO that should be left up to the localities.

          But also, a town that wants to keep a statue shouldn’t be hounded and sued by activists, and intimidated into taking it down.

      2. Read Deep Roots: How Slavery Still Shapes Southern Politics

  5. walter smith Avatar
    walter smith

    So here is a question. The Union fought to keep the Southern States in the union. If they were so horrible, why did the North fight to keep the South in? And what was the point of the reconciliation monument then, if the sections were “reconciled?” And what should be the feelings of the Southern States now? Aren’t they being “occupied?” Or can we call the federal government “Confederate givers” for the betrayals? Are the intolerant Marxist haters proving that the Southern states might have had a point?

    The tragedy is slavery was going to end. And it is not hard to imagine the outcome would have been better for the freed slaves than the “good luck, you’re “free”” aftermath where huge numbers died.

    Until the Marxists agitated, nobody cared about a statue or a building name and it is time to grow a pair and tell the Marxists to stick it where the sun don’t shine. Because they will never stop. Remember how the Arthur Ashe statue was “the deal?” Not to Marxists. Wake up people.

    1. Chip Gibson Avatar
      Chip Gibson

      Well done, Sir!!

  6. Removal should be evaluated as to whether it will lower poverty and crime rates and increase the SOLs.

  7. Chip Gibson Avatar
    Chip Gibson

    A superb article. Compliments to both Representative Bob Good and Mr. Donald Smith. Well past time to end this travesty and begin repairing the damage (as so many of our predecessors attempted, many most successfully, after the end of the war.).

    Gettysburg –
    https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/0f6190e5c233e121c5330bbc7dacd999c05df8c495cc8ee994b63142810b521d.jpg

  8. LarrytheG Avatar

    When we talk about the importance of “history”, there are obvious differences with respect to what history should be told
    and what history should not because doing so is “divisive”, even Marxist.

    We had 100+ years of Jim Crow following the civil war, including textbooks that lied about “history” – for decades in Virginia schools and hardly a whimper from the folks who say
    they “care” about history but only those depicted in monuments.
    https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/b39c72f63c33395b54dd7d1dd59ecbcd2ae2da01c2c69fc5972422d7548f4ac6.png

    https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/a213dd26e1b02f7da553b25399f34b36944b4086a7aa86e72245c885ab4d7700.png

    “If you were a Virginian between fourth and 11th grades from 1957 to the 1970s, you may well have gotten a dose of this official state history. The books were estimated to reach more than a million students.

    Why care about 50-year-old textbooks?

    “The ideas expressed in the books, historically unfounded as many of them may be, are still widespread today. They crop up in the debate over Confederate monuments and in other realms of life,” said Melvin Patrick Ely, a Bancroft Prize-winning historian at the College of William & Mary who focuses on African-Americans and the South.”

    https://richmond.com/news/local/happy-slaves-the-peculiar-story-of-three-virginia-school-textbooks/article_47e79d49-eac8-575d-ac9d-1c6fce52328f.html

    In my mind, what is going on today about the “history” of the monuments is little different. The monuments are “history”but the history with respect to Jim Crow is not and is divisive.

    If the Civil War had ended, and emancipated slaves were accorded actual freedom and genuine ability to seek opportunity, we’d not be having these discussions today. But the fact is that we did not do that and instead we spent decades, more than a hundred years practicing overt systematic racist discrimination against not just the freed slaves themselves, but generations of their descendents.

    We don’t need to “remember” the Confederacy nor the racists and segregationists who dishonored the country with memorials in my view. Written history is plenty.

    1. Donald Smith Avatar
      Donald Smith

      To cast, as the Naming Commission did and many progressives do, each and every Confederate monument as being first and foremost a Lost Cause totem is a slander on the communities that erected them. To many in those communities, those monuments were important ways to honor the sacrifices and memory of family members and neighbors, many of whom didn’t come home from the war. They were also important for helping veterans heal from the lasting psychological wounds of the war. Just as the statues added to the Vietnam Memorial were very important to veterans of that war.

      As for what professors think about Confederate monuments, I’m reminded of Fareed Zakaria’s comment about how wokeness and political correctness has taken over our universities:

      In the humanities, hiring for new academic positions now appears to center on the race and gender of the applicant, as well as the subject matter, which needs to be about marginalized groups. Based on conversations with dozens of academics, my impression is that today a White man studying the US presidency does not have a prayer of getting tenure at a major history department in America.

      I’m pretty sure any historian whose scholarship shows respect for Confederates would get a chilly reception from colleagues (and tenure committees) if they voiced that respect publicly. Which means that we need to think twice about letting college professors interpret our history and shape our heritage for us.

      1. LarrytheG Avatar

        ” To cast, as the Naming Commission did and many progressives do, each and every Confederate monument as being first and foremost a Lost Cause totem is a slander on the communities that erected them. To many in those communities, those monuments were important ways to honor the sacrifices and memory of family members and neighbors, many of whom didn’t come home from the war. They were also important for helping veterans heal from the lasting psychological wounds of the war. Just as the statues added to the Vietnam Memorial were very important to veterans of that war.”

        Memorials to the men and soldiers should stand and they do as far as I know. We have a half dozen in Bloody Angle and they continue to stand without desecration. Vietnam memorials are not to the generals and leaders but to the men as it should be.

        “As for what professors think about Confederate monuments, I’m reminded of Fareed Zakaria’s comment about how wokeness and political correctness has taken over our universities:”

        I heard him say that. I was surprised but there is some truth to what he is saying that I agree with but it is
        not about the monuments and he made that statement in the upheaval in Israel.

        “In the humanities, hiring for new academic positions now appears to center on the race and gender of the applicant, as well as the subject matter, which needs to be about marginalized groups. Based on conversations with dozens of academics, my impression is that today a White man studying the US presidency does not have a prayer of getting tenure at a major history department in America.” – Sorta like a white guy teaching “black studies”? 😉

        “I’m pretty sure any historian whose scholarship shows respect for Confederates would get a chilly reception from colleagues (and tenure committees) if they voiced that respect publicly. Which means that we need to think twice about letting college professors interpret our history and shape our heritage for us.”

        Lots of folks “interpret” history but it’s also there for the actual reading for those that want their own filter.

        so a few college professors interpretation compared to one hundred years of UDC/Jim Crow “interpretation”
        in schools, named buildings and highways and military bases? I think not. Kinda lopsided in fact.

        1. Donald Smith Avatar
          Donald Smith

          “Memorials to the men and soldiers should stand and they do as far as I know.”

          Many of the Confederate statues that were pulled down were to individual (or generic) Confederate soldiers.

          One of the Army’s most potent memorials to individual Confederate soldiers were the campaign streamers that used to be on unit colors. They honored individual fighting units, that were following orders. The Naming Commission recommended that they all be removed, and they were.

          “Lots of folks ‘interpret’ history but it’s also there for the actual reading for those that want their own filter.”

          The Naming Commission claims that its opinions have the endorsement of Congress. Judge Alston agrees. They are, at the very least, implying that their interpretation of Confederate heritage is Congress’. Hearings will get to the bottom of that.

          “so a few college professors interpretation compared to one hundred years of UDC/Jim Crow “interpretation”
          in schools, named buildings and highways and military bases? I think not. Kinda lopsided in fact.”

          I’ll stipulate that there was a lot that was way over the top over the past 100 years in the celebration of Confederate heritage. No disagreement there. (Remember the painting of General Lee with a child sleeping on his lap?) But that doesn’t justify an overreaction the other way. Especially an overreaction with government endorsement.

        2. Donald Smith Avatar
          Donald Smith

          “Memorials to the men and soldiers should stand and they do as far as I know.”

          Many of the Confederate statues that were pulled down were to individual (or generic) Confederate soldiers.

          One of the Army’s most potent memorials to individual Confederate soldiers were the campaign streamers that used to be on unit colors. They honored individual fighting units, that were following orders. The Naming Commission recommended that they all be removed, and they were.

          “Lots of folks ‘interpret’ history but it’s also there for the actual reading for those that want their own filter.”

          The Naming Commission claims that its opinions have the endorsement of Congress. Judge Alston agrees. They are, at the very least, implying that their interpretation of Confederate heritage is Congress’. Hearings will get to the bottom of that.

          “so a few college professors interpretation compared to one hundred years of UDC/Jim Crow “interpretation”
          in schools, named buildings and highways and military bases? I think not. Kinda lopsided in fact.”

          I’ll stipulate that there was a lot that was way over the top over the past 100 years in the celebration of Confederate heritage. No disagreement there. (Remember the painting of General Lee with a child sleeping on his lap?) But that doesn’t justify an overreaction the other way. Especially an overreaction with government endorsement.

          1. LarrytheG Avatar

            For the most part, most of the memorials that are at focus and taken down are those that were put up by UDC during the Jim Crow era. Such memorials were not put up as lone monuments, but as part of simultaneous efforts towards changing names for roads and buildings and promoting textbooks that whitewashed history and taught to generations of Virginia kids who grew up believing it.

            It’s just not true that “ALL” of them are coming down. Thousands of them still stand and likely will continue to stand if they are in military parks and/or not erected during the Jim Crow era by UDC.

            ” Historians say there were two waves of Confederate monuments erected after the Civil War. Up until the 1880s, the monuments were put in cemeteries. But decades after the war and Reconstruction, they started going up in front of courthouses and other public places as a symbol of white supremacy.”

            “They are actually sending a message about who’s in charge. It’s sort of like a re-establishment of white control,” said Karen Cox, a history professor at the University of North Carolina at Charlotte. “Ultimately, what they want is not only Black men not to vote, but any sort of Black elected officials to be involved in government.”

            https://www.wral.com/story/confederate-monuments-were-meant-to-intimidate-blacks-historians-say/19158196/

            The UDC memorials are not seen as “heritage” or history but artifacts to decades of systemic racism against Black Americans.

          2. Donald Smith Avatar
            Donald Smith

            “The UDC memorials are not seen as ‘heritage’ or history but artifacts to decades of system racism against Black Americans.”

            In your opinion. And none of us are obliged to share your opinion.

            In fact, if you tried to convince the American people to share your opinion, you’d get significant blowback, and I’m sure you know that. I’m sure the Naming Commission knew that. Which is why they operated in a way that obscured its real intent until it was too late to do much about it.

            If the Naming Commission was confident that its opinions were shared by a majority of Americans, it would have submitted its findings earlier in the Congressional year, so that Congress could have debated them fully and openly.

          3. LarrytheG Avatar

            It’s not just my opinion Donald.

            I tried to share how many of people feel about Jim Crow and it’s influence on the monuments and memorials.

            Most Americans, once they know this and realize they were not taught honest history start to see the “why”.

            But let me ask you – Do you disagree with respect to memorials created by UDC as part of Jim Crow?

            Do you think that’s not true?

            Or do you acknowledge it but it’s not a problem for you?

          4. Donald Smith Avatar
            Donald Smith

            If you are going to blame the UDC for touting white supremacy in the late 1800s/early 1900s, you will have to cast your net wider. Many former soldiers and politicians from Union states were more than happy to subjugate Native Americans and depict their civilizations as substandard, and inferior to white civilization. The same thing happened in Canada. Rudyard Kipling, the author of “White Man’s Burden,” was from England, not South Carolina.

            I object to your apparent characterization of all Confederate memorials, to include those created by the UDC, as first and foremost Jim Crow totems. I’ll stipulate that some people saw them as monuments to white supremacy, but the late 1800s/early 1900s were a time when white supremacy was in vogue across the country.

            Those monuments, as with all monuments, mean different things to different people.

            “Or do you acknowledge it but it’s not a problem for you?”

            If you’re insinuating that I am a racist, let me return the favor and speculate that you are a clever Marxist.

          5. LarrytheG Avatar

            I don’t disgree with you at all except to point out , it was not an organized group of people doing this
            on a wide scope of monuments, falsified state textbooks, etc… It was more as individuals who
            had racist views rather than an organized group carrying it out.

            I do not characterize ALL Confederate memorials, some are not, especially those dedicated to soldiers, not heroic figures
            and located in Military but I do so for most all UDC memorials. They were not only
            seen as white supremacy, there were explicitly intended so by UDC from the history I’ve read.

            When you say, “in vogue”, do you compare what was done to blacks in the South and Virginia to what was
            done to them in the northern states? I think there was a big difference in the South, to the point where
            blacks in the South fled to the Northern States and cities.

            No, I was/is asking you a serious question. Do you acknowledge that many are inspired by Jim Crow ? yes? And if so,
            even if you recognize that, you still consider them to be history and heritage?

            I’m not being “clever” at all. I see a significant difference of opinion and am trying to understand where the
            divergence is. I am fine with just about any Confederate monument that has no origins in Jim Crow whether UDC or others but anything associated with Jim Crow, to me , is an affront to every single person of race and those of us
            who abhor racism and disparate treatment of others because of race. There is no middle ground on it to me. It’s
            like arguing that monuments of Hitler mean different things to different people and it’s too bad it makes Jews fell bad.

            Jim Crow is a stain on the country. It needs to go away from public spaces. It can sit in a private museum or park
            but it has no legitimate place in public spaces where descendants of emancipated slaves walk. Doing so, essentially
            says Jim Crow is worth remembering. It’s not.

          6. Donald Smith Avatar
            Donald Smith

            “I am fine with just about any Confederate monument that has no origins in Jim Crow whether UDC or others but anything associated with Jim Crow, to me , is an affront to every single person of race and those of us who abhor racism and disparate treatment of others because of race. There is no middle ground on it to me.”

            As I’ve said many times, monuments mean different things to different people. And, just who is the authority that says that one monument is mostly Jim Crow and another isn’t?

            As for you having no middle ground, unfortunately the best solutions in life come from finding middle, or common, ground. You and the folks on your side of the argument have a “my way or the highway” approach to this matter.

          7. LarrytheG Avatar

            It’s clear and documented history with respect to UDC and Jim Crow. There is no doubt at all. To me, it’s a choice of acknowledging the facts and documented history or choosing to be willfully ignorant so as to curate one’s own beliefs no matter the facts much as UDC was doing with textbooks.

            We don’t put “memorials” in public spaces that offend and insult fellow citizens and other members of society because doing so is wrong and divisive.

            For all the yammering about “divisive”, Jim Crow was the mother of all divisiveness yet we
            steadfastly claim it is “heritage” and “means different things to different folks”. You KNOW
            what it means to those whose families were subject to Jim Crow. Why would you want to
            continue to have such symbols in the public spaces they walk in?

            Middle ground is to NOT do that while at the same time , accepting monuments and symbols , “heritage” that are not associated with Jim Crow.

            No, we’re not going to agree with Jim Crow memorials no more than we’ll agree that racism means different things to different folks and we’re “intolerant” not to “understand” that
            some folks are just racist and we should accept it. It’s a false analogy.

          8. Donald Smith Avatar
            Donald Smith

            “We don’t put ‘memorials’ in public spaces that offend and insult fellow citizens and other members of society because doing so is wrong and divisive.”

            As we’ve seen with NYC taking down Thomas Jefferson and Philadelphia trying to take down William Penn, some of our fellow citizens are easily offended and insulted. Perhaps we should come up with a new term: The Butthurt Veto.

            And, as I’ve said in the past, I’ve lost count of the number of SCV members I’ve spoken with, who stay that African-Americans tell them that the people most traumatized by Confederate statues are progressives, people afflicted with white guilt or people who fancy themselves the “champions” of people of color and love to virtue-signal.

          9. LarrytheG Avatar

            Worth Reading… no mention of “progressives” butt-hurt or otherwise:

            It pretty much relfects my thoughts:

            Confederate Monuments—Frequently Asked Questions

            How did the National Trust for Historic Preservation—an organization dedicated to saving places—arrive at a point where it supports removal of Confederate monuments?

            The National Trust believes that Black Lives Matter, Black History Matters, and that historic preservation have a powerful role to play in telling the full story of our often-difficult history.

            The nationwide call for racial justice and equity has brought renewed attention to the Confederate monuments in many of our communities. We reexamined the statements we made in the past, including the most recent made in response to the violent white nationalist demonstrations in Charlottesville in 2017, and determined to be more clear about the importance of removing these monuments from public places when they continue to reinforce racial injustice.

            Our view is that unless these monuments can in fact be used to foster recognition of the reality of our painful past of racial injustice and invite reconciliation for the present and the future, they should be removed from our public spaces.

            As preservationists, our goal is not to freeze places in time, and historic places should be allowed to evolve as their communities and individuals do. The purpose of preservation is not to stop change, but to offer tools that help a community manage change in thoughtful ways that do not disconnect the community from the full legacies of its past and the potential for its future.

            Does removing a Confederate monument mean you’re erasing history?

            No. History is not that fragile. History is written in our buildings, landscapes, documents, objects, oral traditions, individual memories, and many other places, as well as in monuments in public spaces. To the contrary, left standing without appropriate context, these monuments promote a false and damaging narrative. When removed, these monuments can provide an even deeper understanding of history in other venues, such as museums, that can offer fuller and more inclusive context around the people, events, and ideologies that led to the monuments’ creation, and their relationship to present-day issues.

            Does the National Trust approve of the spontaneous removal of these monuments by individuals or groups?

            No. Though the National Trust recognizes that these symbols have stood as tacit sanctions of oppression—in some cases, for more than a century—we do not agree with the removal of these monuments in any unplanned way, such as spontaneous action during a protest, that represents a danger to public safety.

            What guidance is the National Trust offering to communities? What steps do you recommend?

            The National Trust is in the process of developing additional guidance to help communities grapple with and formulate their own ideas on these issues, especially if they are considering removing a Confederate monument. We plan to share more resources in the coming weeks, and we want to play an active role in helping communities to allow their public spaces to continue to evolve to reflect their values. Please visit our website on this topic for updates and additional information.

            What should communities do with the monuments that are removed?

            Ideally, communities should be inclusive in deciding the future of these monuments and use the process as an opportunity for acknowledgement and reconciliation. Realistically, that may not be possible at the present time if the removal poses a risk to public safety. Options include putting them in storage; relocating them to private land or other locations as determined by the community; or recontextualizing them in an honest and inclusive way, whether in a museum or another place.

            What, if anything, should replace them?

            We believe that it is up to each community to decide whether or how to replace them, but that process should be done in a thoughtful and inclusive way to promote genuine healing and reconciliation. Because removal itself becomes a part of the ongoing history of the communities they once stood in, the resulting change in the cultural landscape of these public places creates an important opportunity to “tell the full story” about why they were erected—and why they were removed.

            What about Confederate monuments on Civil War battlefields? Does the National Trust support their removal?

            There are a number of different types of monuments at Civil War battlefields that reference the Confederacy, including monuments to specific Confederate military leaders or units, memorials of individual and collective deaths in battle, and markers that identify the locations of military units and their movements within the landscape. In some cases, monuments have been installed on battlefields for the primary purpose of glorifying, promoting, and reinforcing the ideology of white supremacy. But many others serve as true memorials or monuments to historic events or people engaged in those events. And some are a hybrid: they recognize battlefield action, and even details of individual units, but also feature text or graphic elements that reflect aspects of “Lost Cause” ideology.

            Consistent with the National Trust position on Confederate monuments in public spaces it is also appropriate to remove Confederate monuments on battlefields that were primarily intended to glorify, promote, and reinforce white supremacy. This will help to ensure that our public spaces—including National Parks and other state and local publicly-owned Civil War battlefields—are welcoming spaces to all Americans. At the same time, we recognize that battlefields are different from courthouse squares or other civic spaces, because they were the places where soldiers of both sides fought and died, and sometimes where their remains still lie. Battlefields of any era are meaningful and sacred places of education, memorialization, and reflection. As such, they are places where monuments and memorials can be powerful tools for education and memorialization, as well as fostering recognition and inviting reconciliation.

            Within this context, and acknowledging the many different meanings of battlefield monuments, the National Trust strongly supports a process of inclusive public engagement, through which the National Park Service and other stewards of publicly-owned Civil War battlefields should fully consider options for the future treatment of Confederate monuments, including removal, relocation, or retention with additional contextualization—such as interpretation by experienced park rangers to ensure that these monuments are understood and are historically and accurately presented.

            Whether or not Confederate monuments are removed from battlefields or other public spaces, it is imperative that robust additional interpretation (and, as appropriate, commemorative works) be added to our National Parks and historic sites around the country that more fully recognizes the tremendous human cost of and courageous resistance to the institution of slavery, as well as the full stories of Reconstruction, Jim Crow segregation, and the Civil Rights Movement.

            How does the National Trust’s position on Confederate monuments translate to other types of monuments and memorials, such as those to Christopher Columbus?

            This debate has sparked cascading conversations nationwide about the origin and meaning of other monuments, landmarks, or objects. We also acknowledge that not all monuments are the same. The National Trust’s statement refers specifically to Confederate monuments, their unique context, and their relationship to this moment in time. That said, we encourage all communities to review, consider, and grapple with their full complex histories, and the way those histories are represented by monuments in public places, to help move us toward greater understanding and acknowledgement of our often-difficult history.

            What is the National Trust doing to save places related to African American history?

            The National Trust strives to tell the full American story, including, among other ways, the National Trust’s African American Cultural Heritage Action Fund, which works to save places where African American history happened. We invite members of the public to take the pledge to join us in saving these places, and learn more about this critical work.

            What about historic sites, especially former plantations, where people were enslaved?

            We differentiate symbolic monuments from historic sites that have developed over time, some of them places built by African Americans held in bondage. These historic sites today must serve as critical places to explore the legacies of slavery and discrimination, and as sites of conscience where the honest exploration of our shared history and reconciliation can occur. At our own National Trust Historic Sites, we are engaged actively in this work, but there is much to be done and we look forward to sharing our work on this with colleagues across the country as it continues.

            What about people who are proud of their Confederate heritage? How should they respond to this issue?

            Thoughtful, honest dialogue is essential so that those who are proud of their Confederate heritage also begin to understand the way the monuments are seen differently by other members of the community. While these monuments may be understood as part of the legacy of Confederate veterans, they are viewed by others—including some of those descendants of Confederate veterans, new residents, and African American members of the community—as public confirmation of an ideology that supports racial oppression. We believe that monuments in public spaces should reflect the shared values of the full community and should not project oppression or intimidation. People are still free to remember and honor their ancestors, whether Confederate, Union, enslaved, or free, which can be a path to deeper understanding of our shared and difficult history.

      2. Eric the half a troll Avatar
        Eric the half a troll

        “Just as the statues added to the Vietnam Memorial were very important to veterans of that war.”

        The difference is that they were American soldiers. Are you suggesting the Confederacy deserves a memorial on the National Mall? If not, can you explain why not?

        1. Donald Smith Avatar
          Donald Smith

          Both sides were Americans. This was a Civil War.

          Were Native Americans American soldiers? If not, then why does the U.S. Army name its helicopters after Native American tribes.

          I brought this up to one Congressional staffer. The staffer replied that maybe that’s something that should be addressed by “Naming Commission II.” The staffer’s words, not mine.

          See what I mean by Pandora’s Box?

          1. Eric the half a troll Avatar
            Eric the half a troll

            “Both sides were Americans…”

            Actually, not at the time. Nevertheless, you did not answer my questions so I will ask again:

            “Are you suggesting the Confederacy deserves a memorial on the National Mall? If not, can you explain why not?”

            Should be pretty easy, I would think.

            “Were Native Americans American soldiers? If not, then why does the U.S. Army name its helicopters after Native American tribes.”

            As I said below, the US military should stop misappropriating Native American culture. On this we agree.

          2. LarrytheG Avatar

            Not exactly Pandora box, just evidence that there is still work to do to get us to a society that respects each other and does not denigrate or insult based on race, ethnicity, etc.

            If the NFL can do it, I’m sure the Military can and will also.

            It’s hard for some folks to refrain from racist instincts which are human but at the same time, we do not make accommodations or show respect for such behaviors.

          3. Donald Smith Avatar
            Donald Smith

            “It’s hard for some folks to refrain from racist instincts which are human but at the same time, we do not make accommodations or show respect for such behaviors.”

            If we apply today’s standards of racism to our past, we will be left with a shallow history.

          4. LarrytheG Avatar

            We say we don’t do it now nor do we tolerate it now.

            We disavow it now even though it’s in our history.

            We condemn it now when we see it today.

            We do not equivocate it.

            It was wrong and we admit we did it and we now reject it and any memorials to it.

          5. Might as well call these the Truth Commissions. Orwell would like that.

          6. Eric the half a troll Avatar
            Eric the half a troll

            “Both sides were Americans…”

            Actually, not at the time. Nevertheless, you did not answer my questions so I will ask again:

            “Are you suggesting the Confederacy deserves a memorial on the National Mall? If not, can you explain why not?”

            Should be pretty easy, I would think.

            “Were Native Americans American soldiers? If not, then why does the U.S. Army name its helicopters after Native American tribes.”

            As I said below, the US military should stop misappropriating Native American culture. On this we agree.

          7. Donald Smith Avatar
            Donald Smith

            “Actually, not at the time. Nevertheless, you did not answer my questions so I will ask again:”

            I’m not obligated to play fetch for you. Especially for someone who hides in the comments section under a fake name.

            “As I said below, the US military should stop misappropriating Native American culture. On this we agree.”

            Oh no, we don’t. It would be a mistake to rename Army helicopters. Just as it was a mistake to remove Confederate battle streamers from Army National Guard flags. It would indicate that Americans really have turned emotionally and culturally brittle. But this is the path the Naming Commission has put us on.

            However, we might have to change the helicopter names, if wokeism really has become the new standard. Standards are only fair if they apply to everyone.

          8. Eric the half a troll Avatar
            Eric the half a troll

            “I’m not obligated to play fetch for you…”

            Leaving me to opine… does this mean you actually do think there should be a Confederate memorial on the National Mall or that you just don’t want to acknowledge why you think there should not be… 🤔

            “However, we might have to change the helicopter names, if wokeism really has become the new standard”

            I am trying to tell you that under the standards of so-called “wokeism” the helicopter names should be changed. Just not for the reasons you believe.

          9. Donald Smith Avatar
            Donald Smith

            “under the standards of so-called “wokeism” the helicopter names should be changed. Just not for the reasons you believe.”

            Native American community, please take note. We warned everybody that those people weren’t going to stop with Confederate statues.

          10. Eric the half a troll Avatar
            Eric the half a troll

            “Native American community, please take note. We warned everybody that those people weren’t going to stop with Confederate statues.”

            I think they will have a bigger problem with you conflating their struggles with the actions of traitors to their own country. One is honorable, one is not. Can you guess which is which?

  9. Bob X from Texas Avatar
    Bob X from Texas

    Only people more honorable than Robert E. Lee and Stonewall Jackson should be on the Naming Commission!

    1. Nancy Naive Avatar
      Nancy Naive

      So, just about anyone who hasn’t owned slaves and taken arms against the country?

      1. That would negate the injuns

        1. Nancy Naive Avatar
          Nancy Naive

          Or the white immigrants depending on which way you’re walking.

        2. Nancy Naive Avatar
          Nancy Naive

          Or the white immigrants depending on which way you’re walking.

          1. What USMIL equipment/facilities are named after white immigrants?

          2. Nancy Naive Avatar
            Nancy Naive

            The USS Eisenhower for one?

        3. Eric the half a troll Avatar
          Eric the half a troll

          Yeah, and who can forget the terrible Confederate Trail of Tears….

          1. The Trail of Tears was implemented by the United States government between 1830 and 1850.

            The confederacy did not exist at any time during that period.

          2. Eric the half a troll Avatar
            Eric the half a troll

            It’s called sarcasm.

  10. Eric the half a troll Avatar
    Eric the half a troll

    “But it accepted it — or, at least agreed to tolerate it — as a price of reconciliation.”

    Boy they sure had to pay that price for a long time (almost like it was extortion). Note date on this letter… https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/657266a2ed8c3b27250a8371b9dc4288e4ca7ae837ea9a4f737c020edaa16e7c.jpg

    1. Donald Smith Avatar
      Donald Smith

      Not sure what your point is here, but I’m glad you brought up Gettysburg. A common argument of the statue-toppling crowd is that many were erected during the “Jim Crow era” (late 1890s to early 1900s). A Gettysburg historian, in a lecture on the monuments on the battlefield, noted that many were created around the times of the 25th and 50th anniversaries of the battle. The historian said that the 25th and 50th anniversaries of an event often generate desires among the event participants and their families to commemorate that event and the people who participated in it.

      The 1890s were the 25th anniversary years of the Civil War. For some reason, the statue-pulling crowd neglects to mention this. Wonder why…

      1. Eric the half a troll Avatar
        Eric the half a troll

        “Not sure what your point is here…”

        Just questioning why “reconciliation” was still required by Mississippi in 1962…

      2. Eric the half a troll Avatar
        Eric the half a troll

        “Not sure what your point is here…”

        Just questioning why “reconciliation” was still required by Mississippi in 1962…

        1. Donald Smith Avatar
          Donald Smith

          What is wrong with the Mississippi chapter of the Sons of Confederate Veterans wanting to erect a monument to Mississippi Confederates at Gettysburg?

          One of the purposes of monuments like this is to honor ancestors who fought honorably.

          1. Eric the half a troll Avatar
            Eric the half a troll

            Nothing at all, of course. You tried to make the case that these statues were the price we had to pay for “reconciliation”. I was simply wondering why Mississippi required a “reconciliation statue” payment in 1962. Can you provide an answer?

            Btw, are not 40 Gettysburg Confederate monuments sufficient to maintain your Confederate “heritage”?

          2. Eric the half a troll Avatar
            Eric the half a troll

            Nothing at all, of course. You tried to make the case that these statues were the price we had to pay for “reconciliation”. I was simply wondering why Mississippi required a “reconciliation statue” payment in 1962. Can you provide an answer?

            Btw, are not 40 Gettysburg Confederate monuments sufficient to maintain your Confederate “heritage”?

          3. Eric the half a troll Avatar
            Eric the half a troll

            Nothing at all, of course. You tried to make the case that these statues were the price we had to pay for “reconciliation”. I was simply wondering why Mississippi required a “reconciliation statue” payment in 1962. Can you provide an answer?

            Btw, are not 40 Gettysburg Confederate monuments sufficient to maintain your Confederate “heritage”?

          4. Donald Smith Avatar
            Donald Smith

            How does the letter you posted show that the Mississippi SCV wanted a statue for the purposes of “reconciliation?” The letter specifically says the monument would honor Mississippi’s Confederate dead. If you read the word “reconciliation” in there, apparently you can read invisible ink.

          5. LarrytheG Avatar

            Don’t these guys fly the Confederate flag even today?

            Didn’t Mississippi remove the Confederate Flag from the State Flag?

      3. LarrytheG Avatar

        Not just the year but by who.

  11. DJRippert Avatar

    The problem with the modern theory of the US Civil War in Virginia is the belief that The Old Dominion was fully and completely behind the Confederacy.

    It was not.

    40% of Virginia’s officers in the United States military when the war started stayed and fought for the Union. These men included Winfield Scott, General-in-Chief of the Union Army; David G. Farragut, First Admiral of the Union Navy; and General George Henry Thomas.

    The jurisdictions in Virginia voted twice for succession. A number of those jurisdictions, including Fairfax County and Henrico County, twice voted “no”.

    Had our elected brain trust in Virginia memorialized the Civil War instead of the Confederacy, it would have a much more defensible position to keep the memorials.

    Instead, Virginia accepted the fever dream of The Lost Cause. In that hallucination, Virginians were unanimously supportive of the rebellion and all Virginians fought against the North. The fight was for things like “states’ rights” and had little to do with slavery. Based on this, significant memorials to men like Admiral Farragut and George Henry Thomas were downplayed while memorials to men like Robert E Lee and Stonewall Jackson were overplayed.

    Virginia had its chance to accurately portray history, including its own history. Unfortunately, the Plantation Elite who ran the state for far too long clung to their narrow and parochial view of both American and Virginia history and managed to misrepresent both.

    1. Donald Smith Avatar
      Donald Smith

      “Instead, Virginia accepted the fever dream of The Lost Cause.”

      You seem to be asserting that, for every Virginian who was alive during the time that most of the Confederate memorials went up, each and every one had the exact same view of what the monuments meant, and they ONLY meant one thing: support for the Lost Cause and white supremacy. I’m sure you can find plenty of progressive academics to support your thesis, but common sense tells us that it’s not so.

      1. DJRippert Avatar

        Why wasn’t Admiral Farragut as memorialized as Stonewall Jackson?

        Virginia was split by the US Civil War.

        Farragut was quite clear while living in Virginia prior to the Civil War – anybody who supported secession was guilty of treason.

        Whether you agree or disagree with Admiral Farragut, he was living in Norfolk when the US Civil War broke out.

        It took until 2019 until Norfolk dedicated a quarter acre of a park to Farragut.

        https://www.wavy.com/news/local-news/norfolk/new-park-in-norfolk-honors-the-first-us-navy-admiral/

        Virginia never memorialized the Civil War, only the Confederacy. This despite the fact that many military officers living in Virginia at the outbreak of the Civil War fought, and fought heroically, for he Union.

        The Confederacy is part of Virginia’s history but so is the Union.

        Stonewall Jackson is part of Virginia’s history but so is Farragut.

        1. Donald Smith Avatar
          Donald Smith

          I wholeheartedly support monuments to Farragut, Thomas and other Virginians who fought for the Union.

          1. LarrytheG Avatar

            Where are their UDC memorials?

    2. James Wyatt Whitehead Avatar
      James Wyatt Whitehead

      Mr. DJ the Virginia Convention of 1861 is a fascinating period. Two votes. The final vote was put to a statewide referendum. Ratified by a vote of 132,201 to 37,451 on May 23, 1861. You can really geek out on this subject here. https://secession.richmond.edu/
      Fort Sumter and Lincoln’s Call for 75,000 volunteers changed everything.
      https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/827cad17edfb820954c9610b78ad30a1fe296ec14a54cbcf5252ce2e48d28e76.jpg
      https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/e255a3292e32b5e8410d2597775af77412009cb34ac11732354cd625563258a5.jpg

    3. James Wyatt Whitehead Avatar
      James Wyatt Whitehead

      Farragut was not a Virginian. Born at Campbell’s Station, TN near Knoxville. Renamed Farragut, TN after the war. Born James Glasgow Farragut. Changed his first name to David in honor of his adoptive dad David Porter, a noted War of 1812 naval hero. I like Farragut. He has an impressive bronze statue in Washington DC at Farragut Square.

  12. It will cost a lot of money to rename all the streets and highways in Virginia (even NoVa) named after Confederates. That alone may put a brake on this lunacy. Then again…

  13. LarrytheG Avatar

    If Goode can duplicate Elise Stefanik’s “woke” coup, he may be able to chalk up another woke loss!

    got a strong GOP lineup on the Oversight Committee:

    James Comer, Kentucky, Chair
    Jim Jordan, Ohio
    Mike Turner, Ohio
    Paul Gosar, Arizona
    Virginia Foxx, North Carolina
    Glenn Grothman, Wisconsin
    Michael Cloud, Texas (from December 6, 2023)
    Gary Palmer, Alabama
    Clay Higgins, Louisiana
    Pete Sessions, Texas
    Andy Biggs, Arizona
    Nancy Mace, South Carolina
    Jake LaTurner, Kansas
    Pat Fallon, Texas
    Byron Donalds, Florida
    Kelly Armstrong, North Dakota
    Scott Perry, Pennsylvania
    William Timmons, South Carolina
    Tim Burchett, Tennessee
    Marjorie Taylor Greene, Georgia
    Lisa McClain, Michigan
    Lauren Boebert, Colorado
    Russell Fry, South Carolina
    Anna Paulina Luna, Florida
    Chuck Edwards, North Carolina (until December 6, 2023)
    Nick Langworthy, New York
    Eric Burlison, Missouri

    I’m betting they’re gonna do a proper grilling…

    1. Donald Smith Avatar
      Donald Smith

      Gosh, I hope it doesn’t trigger the commissioners. Most of them were appointed by Democrats after all. Perhaps we need to set up a safe space, with My Little Pony videos, in the House chambers.

  14. James Wyatt Whitehead Avatar
    James Wyatt Whitehead

    Fun fact. After Virginia adopted the Ordinance of Secession a resolution was passed to rewrite the state constitution. The December 1861 rewrite included the provision of taxing slaves as property. This was done to assuage the western counties (WV) and mend fences with the slave holding eastern counties. I think the tax would have gradually extinguished slavery. The 1862 vote was close but rejected the proposed constitution 13,233 in favor, 13,911 opposed.

  15. Bob Good is trying to shore up his support among the MAGAts now that he is in Trump’s sights.

Leave a Reply