The False Cause: Fraud, Fabrication, and White Supremacy in Confederate Memory Source

Summary

The Virginia Center for Civil War Studies hosted Dr. Adam Domby to discuss his book "The False Cause: Fraud, Fabrication, and White Supremacy in Confederate Memory." The presentation explored how the Lost Cause narrative rewrites Civil War history, focusing on how lies and myths have been used to rewrite the past to uphold white supremacy. Key topics covered included Confederate memory, monuments, and historical deception, showcasing the lingering impact of Confederates' distorted legacy. Dr. Domby highlighted how these narratives fostered racial hierarchies and discussed the persistence of these issues in modern times.

Highlights

• Dr. Adam Domby discussed how the Lost Cause narrative distorts Civil War history. 🚫
• Confederate monuments were often erected to celebrate white supremacy and offer a revised narrative of the Civil War. 🚩
• The narrative falsely claims magnanimous intentions and portrays Confederates as noble, which obscures slavery's pivotal role. 🙅‍♂️
• Julian Carr's speeches exemplify how Confederate veterans reshaped the historical narrative to serve political purposes. 🎭
• The lecture exposes how these historical fabrications continue to uphold racial hierarchies. 🔍

Key Takeaways

• Monument dedications serve as key moments revealing the intent behind Confederate memorials. 🎭
• Lost Cause myths aim to portray Confederates positively, often denying slavery's role in the Civil War. 🚫
• The persistence of these myths affects contemporary racial dynamics, with confederate memory often upholding white supremacy. 🚩
• Fraudulent narratives, like Black Confederate myths, have been used to manipulate historical memory. 🚫
• Reevaluation of Confederate soldier memory is essential for understanding the complex legacy of the Civil War. 🔄

Overview

At the Virginia Center for Civil War Studies, Dr. Adam Domby presented a lecture on his book, "The False Cause," examining how Confederate memory has been crafted to uphold white supremacy. He delved into the specifics of how veterans like Julian Carr propagated the Lost Cause narrative to reframe the Civil War as a noble effort, often omitting or altering the central role of slavery. The talk assessed the problematic narratives surrounding Confederate monuments and the lasting impact they have on modern racial issues.

Dr. Domby highlighted that Confederate narratives, including myths of black Confederate soldiers, were often fabricated to serve political ends. By redefining the purpose of the Civil War and manipulating public memory, these narratives helped maintain racial hierarchies and starkly contradicted historical facts. The discussion emphasized the importance of addressing these lies to understand the present racial dynamics and the influence of these falsified histories.

The lecture further explored how the memory of the Civil War, perpetuated by Confederate veterans, remains influential today. Dr. Domby pointed out that the myths and monuments serve as tools to bolster racial superiority narratives under the guise of historical commemoration. He advocated for a reevaluation of Confederate soldier memory, encouraging a more critical understanding of the past and its long-standing consequences.

Chapters

• 00:00 - 01:30: Introduction and Announcements The chapter starts with a welcoming speech, appreciating attendees for their presence at the event. This event is part of the New Perspectives and Civil War era history speaker series. The speaker notes their previous appearances alongside Dr. Jonathan Jones, indicating their ongoing participation in the series. Before introducing a new speaker, the presenter briefly mentions future events planned for the spring semester, continuing with the theme of new perspectives.
• 01:30 - 04:00: Speaker Introduction: Dr. Adam Domby The chapter introduces Dr. Adam Domby, who is associated with Civil War Era history. It highlights upcoming events and activities related to Civil War history that will be held in the spring. These activities include several Civil War weekends scheduled for March 2021, focusing on themes such as 'Resources at War' or 'for War.' The chapter concludes by informing the audience about various platforms like the website civilwar.vt.edu and a Twitter page, where they can get updates and information about new events and the Center's activities.
• 04:00 - 05:00: The False Cause: Book Overview This chapter serves as an overview of the book 'The False Cause'. It begins with a discussion on various platforms where events related to the book can be tracked, such as Twitter, Facebook, YouTube, and C-Span. Dr. Caroline Wood Newhall, the postdoctoral fellow at the Virginia Center, expresses excitement about sharing the book's content with the audience.
• 05:00 - 09:00: Lost Cause Myths and Confederate Monuments This chapter features a lecture by Dr. Adam Domby, an award-winning historian specializing in the Civil War, Reconstruction, and the American South. The lecture is part of a Civil War Studies series, and Dr. Domby discusses themes from his book 'The False Cause: Fraud, Fabrication, and White Supremacy and Confederate.' The talk likely delves into the historical myths surrounding the Confederacy, particularly those perpetuated through monuments and how these myths have influenced perceptions of white supremacy and historical narratives about the Civil War and Reconstruction.
• 09:00 - 15:30: The Lost Cause Narrative The chapter titled 'The Lost Cause Narrative' explores the myths, legends, and falsehoods surrounding the Lost Cause ideology. It delves into the creation of Confederate monuments and examines how these narratives were constructed. The speaker, Dr. Danby, who has expertise in Civil War memory and white supremacy, also discusses related topics such as prisoners of war, guerrilla warfare, reconstruction, divided communities, and public history. The chapter focuses on exposing the roots and persistence of white supremacy within these historical narratives and structures.
• 15:30 - 23:00: Slavery and the Civil War The chapter begins with the introduction of Dr. Adam Domby, who is set to speak about the interconnections between slavery and the Civil War. The transcript includes a reminder about the availability of closed captions and encourages attendees to engage using the Q&A function intended for the discussion's conclusion. The chapter sets the stage for a talk that intertwines historical narratives with contemporary reflections.
• 23:00 - 30:00: Reconstruction and Its Misrepresentation The chapter "Reconstruction and Its Misrepresentation" opens with an enthusiastic speaker expressing gratitude for the audience gathered to discuss an important topic: the "Lost Cause." The speaker mentions their affiliation with Virginia Tech and notes their authorship of a book titled "The False Cause: Fraud, Fabrication, White Supremacy."
• 30:00 - 37:00: Julian Carr: A Case Study The chapter 'Julian Carr: A Case Study' examines the concept of 'Confederate Memory' and how societies create narratives about the past. It highlights how collective memory is often a selective process that involves both forgetting and fabricating aspects of history. The chapter contrasts the general public's approach to remembering the past with that of historians, who strive for accuracy through meticulous research.
• 37:00 - 43:00: The Role of Monuments in White Supremacy This chapter explores the connection between historical narratives and white supremacy through monuments, focusing on the propagation of false stories and myths. It delves into cases of pension fraud and fabricated tales about deserters, analyzing how these narratives perpetuate white supremacy and alter historical memory.
• 43:00 - 53:00: Confederate Soldier Memory and White Supremacy This chapter discusses the myth of black Confederate soldiers, clarifying that African Americans were not allowed to serve in the Confederate military until March 1865, and that this myth has been propagated for various reasons. The book explores these myths alongside the broader theme of Confederate soldier memory and its links to white supremacy.
• 53:00 - 75:00: Audience Q&A The chapter 'Audience Q&A' delves into the topic of Confederate monuments. It explains the significance of examining the dedications and the individuals involved in erecting these monuments to truly understand their intended purpose. This approach is highlighted as a timely and relevant way to comprehend the messaging behind Confederate monuments in contemporary discussions.
• 75:00 - 77:00: Conclusion and Closing Remarks The chapter begins with a brief introduction as the speaker prepares to share their screen for the presentation. They confirm with the audience that the shared screen is visible and accessible, ensuring all are on the same page as they prepare to discuss pictures from a monument, likely related to the chapter's theme.

The False Cause: Fraud, Fabrication, and White Supremacy in Confederate Memory Source Transcription

• 00:00 - 00:30 All right, good evening, everybody. Thank you so much  for being here this evening. Welcome to our third   event of the semester in the New Perspectives and  Civil War era history speaker series. We've had two   speakers before now--myself and Dr. Jonathan Jones--and before I introduce our third speaker who I'm   very excited to have here tonight, I just wanted to  let you all know that we have some upcoming events,   as well, in the spring semester. We'll be doing  some more speakers for the New Perspectives in
• 00:30 - 01:00 Civil War Era History throughout the spring, so  keep an eye out for those. Additionally, we will   be hosting several Civil War weekends throughout  the spring, particularly in March 2021 which will   be really, really fascinating and exciting. The theme for that will be "Resources at War"  or "for War" and so I encourage you to keep an eye  out on the mailing list. I'd like to remind you   all that we have several sources for checking in  on new events and seeing what the Center is up to.   We have the website, civilwar.vt.edu, and then  we have the Twitter page which is available,
• 01:00 - 01:30 obviously, on Twitter, Facebook, and YouTube, so you  can reach us in several different venues. This   event will also be posted on C-Span in just a few  weeks, so keep an eye out for that. We'll be posting   about that on Twitter and Facebook as well. And I just really look forward to sharing this with all of you tonight; this is a really exciting  topic. I should introduce myself as well. My name   is Dr. Caroline Wood Newhall. I'm currently the  postdoctoral fellow here at the Virginia Center
• 01:30 - 02:00 for Civil War Studies along with the director, Dr. Paul Quigley, and I'd like to introduce, without   further ado, our speaker for tonight, Dr. Adam Domby.  Now Dr. Domby, I'm very excited to have here with us   tonight. He's an award-winning historian of the  Civil War, Reconstruction, and the American South.   He's also an assistant professor at the College  of Charleston and he'll be speaking tonight a   little bit about his book "The False Cause: Fraud,  Fabrication, and White Supremacy and Confederate
• 02:00 - 02:30 Memory" which can be ordered from any of your  favorite booksellers. So in addition to Civil   War memory, lies, white supremacy, Dr. Danby has  also written about prisoners of war, guerrilla,   warfare, reconstruction, divided communities and  public history. So we'll be getting a little   bit of all of that tonight which I'm looking  forward to hearing about. He'll be talking   about Lost Cause myths, legends, and falsehoods  as well as the creation of Confederate monuments   and in examining tall tales, Dr. Domby  will expose how white supremacy has long
• 02:30 - 03:00 been connected to narratives about the past. Just  as a quick reminder, we do have closed captions   available for any of you who need it and please  feel free to use the Q and A function throughout   the talk and start asking questions which we'll  get to at the end of the discussion. We'll have   maybe 15 to 20 minutes to get through  some of those. So, without further ado,   I'd like to introduce Dr. Adam Domby. Thank you  so much and look forward to hearing your talk. Thank you. Thank you so much for having me. I'm  excited to be here with all of you and
• 03:00 - 03:30 a big fan of the the Center you guys have at  Virginia Tech and so thank you for having me   and I'm really excited that we have so  many people here tonight to hear about what   believe is a really important topic, which is  the Lost Cause and we're going to define that   in a minute but I want to just reiterate sort  of what... how I claim how... why I'm here and   why I got invited is I am the author of a book, "The  False Cause: Fraud, Fabrication, White Supremacy and
• 03:30 - 04:00 Confederate Memory" and its premise is that not  only do we selectively remember the past, not only   do we selectively forget the past which we  all, I think, know, we also just make stuff up. We   literally just make up lies as a society to  understand the past, the way we remember the past   as opposed to the way historians do understand  the past, which is through rigorous research
• 04:00 - 04:30 and, sort of, critical analysis and so my  research looks at these: the ties between lies   and white supremacy and historical memory and  it's... the book looks at everything from pension   fraud to made-up stories about deserters  who deserted for love of their their wives
• 04:30 - 05:00 to myths more recently of black Confederates  which, just to be clear, did not exist. They were   not black Confederates. The Confederate military  did not allow African Americans to serve. It was illegal until March of 1865 under  Confederate law, but there is a myth that has   been propagated for a variety of reasons. And so the book looks at that as well   and the book though... and what's gotten the book  the most attention, I think... is the fact that the
• 05:00 - 05:30 book also looks at Confederate monuments  and Confederate monuments are a topic that   is front and center right now and one of  the easiest ways to understand what these   monuments were meant to do is to actually look  at the dedications, the literal moments when they   put them up, at the individuals who put them up  and see how they understood the these monuments.
• 05:30 - 06:00 So without further ado, I'm going to go ahead and  share my screen. So you guys can hopefully--if this   goes well--see. So we're going to start today... can  you guys see? HAs that got the right screen? Caroline, make sure? All right, excellent. So what we  have here is just a few pictures from monument
• 06:00 - 06:30 dedications and monument dedications are sort of-- a key as I mentioned--key moment when we can get   out with the originals of these monuments wanted  remembered, and so we're going to examine these   moments tonight as a group, but before we get into  the examples, I want to talk about... I want to talk   about the examples you guys can look at, because  one of the great things about the internet is it's   now much easier to do historical research, and you  can actually do research yourselves onto a lot of
• 06:30 - 07:00 these topics, and so you can actually very easily  with things like Newspapers.com go and look up   the... your local dedication and see what was said  at your dedication. Which is a lot of fun and so... sorry about that. Making sure this works. So we're  going to use one example tonight. We're going to
• 07:00 - 07:30 use the example of Julian Carr who--I'm sorry about  that. We're going to use the example of Julian Carr   who called himself a general, though he had served  as a private during the war. He earned his general   stars--which you can see on these uniforms-- not through military service, but actually   because he was the head of Confederate Veterans  and this is sort of one of the many sort of
• 07:30 - 08:00 myths that is propagated, right? That he presents  himself as a general when, in fact, he was a private.   And so he he wears all this regalia that he was  actually not entitled to by the terms of military   service, but through veterans organizations. And so  you could see already... but who was Julian Carr and   why Julian Carr? We're going to use Julian Carr;  we could use a variety of different historians.   Carr is not a household name, right? Now, usually,  but Carr was a North Carolinian industrialist,
• 08:00 - 08:30 he was a major philanthropist, at one point, he was  probably the richest man in North Carolina, he was   the namesake of Carrboro, North Narolina, which is near and dear to my heart, as I lived there for   many years, he was better private as I mentioned,  head of the United Confederate Veteran. So this was   the sort of key veterans organization  for Confederate veterans. He's the top guy.   So when he says something, it's representative  of what those who elected him wanted him to say.
• 08:30 - 09:00 He was a white supremacist. He considered himself  a conservative, he was a Democratic party leader,   and he was, perhaps, the most prolific public  speaker at Confederate monument dedications,   at least in North Carolina if not everywhere.  I mean, he is always at dedications; f you look   at his day planner, when you look at newspapers,  you're always finding Julian Carr front and center   giving a speech and his speeches are  preserved at the University of North Carolina   at Chapel Hill. They have a bunch of his speeches  in, and it's actually these speeches that led me
• 09:00 - 09:30 to this project, but he also felt fun monuments  and so he's so central in this monument-building   movement that I think it's worth focusing on  him as our key example. You can see him here   in as he was one of the leading speakers this  is at the dedication of the Unity Monument   and you can see him there in the  center speaking in his Confederate uniform and though these speeches  and fundraising raising, he was a leading
• 09:30 - 10:00 propagator of the Lost Cause and his mission  was to recall the war in a specific way   which frequently overlapped with  his goals around his political views   with and he was very explicit that these  monuments were meant to celebrate white supremacy.   During these speeches, he would say as much. So it's  not a secret. Now, I keep mentioning the Lost Cause;   what do I mean by the Lost Cause? The Lost Cause is  the narrative that Carr and others wanted recalled--
• 10:00 - 10:30 and as I mentioned, I can do this with other  people, but Carr sort of exemplifies it--and   no person has exactly the same understanding of  the past right. Dr. Newhall and I do not always   agree on every little aspect of  the past, but when it comes to   public memory, there are certain things that  tend to show up again and again. Things that are   sort of key central key tenants we see again  and again, that are sort of central to what   Carr wanted remember and what one others wanted. So  for the Lost Cause--the Lost Cause--this narrative...
• 10:30 - 11:00 it's a way of recalling the past and it was  propagated by Confederate veterans and their   allies--especially their wives and daughters-- that focuses on noble Confederates fighting   for worthwhile costs, and so I want to just sort of  talk about some of these basic tenants, the basic   Lost Cause narrative falsehoods, because  I sometimes refer to it as "the cause"   and we'll talk about each element in  term, but I want to just cover them   so you're aware of them all, and here are the  sort of four claims that we're going to deal with.
• 11:00 - 11:30 The first is that slavery was not the cause of the  war. The sacrifice... that slavery was benevolent. The   third understanding was actually not about the  war so much as about Reconstruction, which argued   that Reconstruction disrupted antebellum race  relations and was a corrupt period of misrule.   And, finally, the most valiant and dedicated  soldiers of all time. Now we'll start with   that first one and we'll work our way through,  because the first one is, perhaps, the easiest,   but it's also, perhaps, the most important. And, so, when we see these sort of four key
• 11:30 - 12:00 lies which we have on the screen right now: slavery not being the cause of the war, slavery   being benevolent, reconstruction  disrupting happy race relations   and being a corrupt period of misrule, and, finally,  Confederates being the most dedicated soldiers,
• 12:00 - 12:30 that slavery was not the cause of the war is  the one I run into the most still and the one   that I think is most problematic and let me be  very clear--it's perhaps the easiest to debunk   the war was about slavery. Mississippi made it  quite clear when they seceded. They said, "It is   but just..." this is in the Mississippi secession  documents; they said, "It is but just that we should   declare the prominent reasons which have induced  our course." In other words, here's why we're doing   this; it's literally a document explaining why  they wanted to leave, it's a list of complaints,
• 12:30 - 13:00 and then they said, after they said here's  our reason, they said, the first thing they say   is, "Our position is thoroughly identified with  slavery, the greatest material interest in the   world," and then they proceed to go on and list  all the ways slavery was threatened, that it's   slave... it's threatened not because it's not being  allowed to expand, it's threatened by the Lincoln   administration, it's threatened by potential slave  insurrection, people like John Brown and it goes on
• 13:00 - 13:30 and on listing all the threats to slavery, and then  it ends. There's no mention of a tariff, no mention   of taxes. They actually complain about there being  too much states' rights because the Fugitive Slave   isn't being enforced, and so that's the really....  the only mention that Mississippi makes of the   Fugitive Slave Act... or a federal law, nor in federal  law, states rights... is they're complaining about too   much states' rights and so historians today really  do agree that slavery was central to the war. They   may disagree which aspect of slavery was central  to, or was it exclusively, was it the threat of
• 13:30 - 14:00 slave insurrection and that motivated people, but  slavery was fundamentally, but why change the Cause? Why remember the war differently? Was it  embarrassment about fighting for a bad cause?   I mean, now you might think it is and it's truth  it has become partly that the reason that is held   on. I think, but it's not exactly the main reason,  because as noted earlier, they argued slavery was   benevolent. Simultaneously, at the same time, they're  saying it wasn't slavery, they're like, "Yeah, but
• 14:00 - 14:30 slavery was good." Follow the logic with me for a  minute--that Confederates after the war put forward   if you fought for states rights, you hadn't  lost. If you fought for slavery, you're a loser.   It's that simple, right? Now, in time, this denial  begins serving a second purpose of avoiding   being tied of avoiding tying the Confederacy  to something morally problematic. And surely   that played some role as well, but in general, the  Lost Cause proponents actually defended slavery.
• 14:30 - 15:00 They claimed it was, again, benevolent and so, like  other Lost Cause advocates though Julian Carr, rewrote the cause of the war to portray himself as  a winner. Now this is actually a monument that's war unveiled in Bennett Place in North Carolina. It is the site of the largest surrender   of Confederate troops in the entire war. So this is  literally where they lost, and at this dedication
• 15:00 - 15:30 speech for a monument there, Carr will say, "we lost,  but we won" and it's kind of absurd, right? Because   what does that even mean? But what he's talking  about is sort of two parts: one is, he's claiming   he wasn't a loser and that the principles which  they fought for--whatever those may be--won out in   the end. For instance, states' rights and that they  hadn't really lost, they found peace with honor,
• 15:30 - 16:00 he says. Now this is, of course, kind of ironic when you think about the fact that   they're literally at the site of a surrender  and he's saying "we didn't really lose. "There   was another monument in North Carolina where at  one of the identifications, another speaker said, "Sorry, Appomattox was not a surrender, it was a  compromise. "his would have surprised Robert   E. Lee, of course, who was pretty sure he surrendered  at Appomattox, but this compromise supposedly was
• 16:00 - 16:30 that slavery died, but states rights were preserved,  because states' rights was a crucial way of   upholding white supremacy during the Jim Crow era. It was a key fight against federal intervention.   I want to go back to this issue: slavery  being... be very clear: Slavery is not benevolent   and you don't have to take my word for it, you can  take the words of slave holders. And here we have
• 16:30 - 17:00 two advertisements that iIm going  to give you a sec to look at:   these are runaway ads. These are ads for runaway  slaves and the first one, on the left, if you notice,   you know, sometimes you'll hear people say  enslaved people were protected because they   were valuable investments, so they were treated.  Well, I give you Mr. Moore who was a enslaver   and he said in this ad "I will give a reward  of twenty five dollars for the delivery
• 17:00 - 17:30 Peter; for fifty dollars for his head." Now, I submit  to you that Peter is not being returned alive   nor does Mr. Moore want Peter returned alive. He  wants him returned dead. Now, the exact reason   he wants this unclear, but what's clear is that  perhaps it's too clear--he is not being protected   by being valuable property. He is, in fact, a  public statement. This is a public statement,
• 17:30 - 18:00 this is normalized, he is not embarrassed  that his neighbors will see this, read   in the newspaper, to be clear. Let's look at  the other one: Mr. Ricks, here, in which he is   unsure of... if this woman ran away or was  stolen and, I submit to you, she was probably   a runaway, because he says publicly in the  newspaper that his neighbors will read, "   burnt her with a hot iron on the left side  of her face. I tried to make the letter 'm.'"
• 18:00 - 18:30 He literally branded her slowly with a hot  iron on her face. He didn't do a very good   job. "I tried to make the letter 'm' and, suddenly,  she runs away a few days after; no surprise.   Now if you look even more carefully, you'll notice  something here and I should warn you, now, when   we talk about history, it gets upsetting and what  we're about to talk about is gonna get a little   bit more upsetting, but as historians, we don't  run away from violence, we don't run away from
• 18:30 - 19:00 accounts of rape or unfortunate things. We  have to run towards them, we have to analyze   them, that's what we do as historians, but I do warn  you, if you do have small children in the room, what   we're about to talk about is upsetting, because if  we look really carefully at this ad, you'll notice   that she ran away with two boys and one of them  is described as both mixed race and with blue eyes,   which is an indicator that perhaps this woman,  who is described as darker skin than her child,
• 19:00 - 19:30 had been raped and we know that rape was  commonplace during slavery. We think of   slavery as just a extraction of labor and it was.  Slavery is a system of extracting labor through   violence, the threat of violence, the threat  of family separation and terror. It really is   premised upon terror, that's what makes it work. It's horrifying, there's really no defense of it,
• 19:30 - 20:00 but it's also not just about money, it's about  power and if you look in in the slave trade,   you will see what's called the "fancy girl trait,"  which are very light-skinned women who were   described as very attractive, usually in their  teens, and they were openly sold as sex slaves. This   isn't openly done in the newspapers, this is in  the top one is in the Fayetteville newspaper
• 20:00 - 20:30 and the bottom one in this this slide that you  guys are looking at right now is from the New   Orleans paper of record and you'll notice that  the most valuable slaves were frequently--not   always, but frequently--sex lives and as young as  12 years old are being separated from their family   and sold into sex slave openly;  and this is in the newspaper, again ,
• 20:30 - 21:00 that's slavery, and if you want to learn more about  slavery, put up two books up there that are great   books for those looking to have more information  on the actual history of slavery--what it really is.   It's safe to say slavery was not benevolent. We can we can sort of take that as fact. Now   Reconstruction disrupted antebellum  relations and was a period of of misrule   is another common lie. And, again, I would say that  this is probably not the best way to interpret
• 21:00 - 21:30 and this was the way it was interpreted at the  turn of the 20th century by many historians--  not all, but the Dunning school at the  turn of the 20th century were very...   propagate this as actual scholars. By the same  time that people remembered it this way publicly,   the reality of reconstruction, again, was a time we  can think of incredible progress, we often think of   American history as an upward trajectory, we're  always going upwards towards more freedom, right?
• 21:30 - 22:00 You have the Declaration of Independence and  then the Constitution and then you refine it   with the 13th, 14th, and 15th Amendment, and  then you get the 19th Amendment makes it   even better, and then you have the Civil Rights  movement, which sort of seals the deal, and we're   just always going towards more freedom, but the  truth of the matter is sometimes we go back. Reconstruction was a period where they had... there  was universal male suffrage, which was then undone,   you had a moment in time when African-Americans  voted in overwhelming numbers across the South,
• 22:00 - 22:30 where, at least legally, equal rights had been  assured, where public education systems were   founded in many Southern states for all, there  were African-American elected representatives   who then were pushed out of office, and by 1901  there are no more, at least in the federal congress,   and it would be years until another  was elected, right? So this backwards   movement, the right to testify against your  accuser, this was.... these were things that everyone could do, suddenly, and, again, I've  put up some books there if you're looking for
• 22:30 - 23:00 extra reading for those who want to know more  about Reconstruction, because they go too deeply   into what Reconstruction was, but it's the period  after the Civil War it's enough to say. Now, how did   these lies uphold slavery--or, sorry, white supremacy--  how did they uphold white supremacy? No, during the   Jim Crow era which is, of course, the early... late  19th, early 20th century, we're talking about now,
• 23:00 - 23:30 these five justify white supremacy. They were used  ideologically to justify white supremacy. If you   believe the South had idealic racial relations  before the Civil War and that enfranchising   African Americans caused bad race relations during  reconstruct... Reconstruction what would fix it? Returning a racial hierarchy--that was the logic  being put forward by this a historical narrative.   Under this a historical logic,  the issue was not giving
• 23:30 - 24:00 African Americans the ballot, that did not cause  the violence of white supremacy. It was... it was the   phrase, this... the violence was caused by giving  people the ballot, not by white supremacy. We   word that for a minute. By the logic of  this historical narrative, disenfranchisement   wasn't a bad thin. It was fixing what was broken.  Now, in reality, we know it was an oppressive system,
• 24:00 - 24:30 right? We all know that, but part of what the  Lost Cause was doing is it was celebrating,   overturning the war's outcome. The 14th and  15th Amendment had essentially been overturned; if the 14th Amendment had been actually enforced,  Southern states would have lost House seats due to   the second section of it. Now the 14th and 15th  Amendment were seen by Lost Cause advocates as
• 24:30 - 25:00 a mistake; in fact, Julian Carr, while in  Manila, no less, so he's out in the Philippines,   but tells the crowd about Reconstruction in  1969; take it from looking soldier... the five   years succeeding.... 1865 to 1870 were more  horrible than four years of bloody war.   Now, though, he was speaking in the Philippines, far  from home. Carr was still celebrating this notion   that white North Carolinians had made the world  better by disenfranchising their African-American
• 25:00 - 25:30 neighbors, and he went on to then celebrate that  North Carolina's head, quote--and this is a quote,   "kept untarnished the un and unpolluted the red  blood of the Anglo-Saxon." So to him, these monuments   are not only cel... training... changing losers  into victors, but they're celebrating not   just the war, but overturning the outcome of  the war, the overturn of the war's outcome.
• 25:30 - 26:00 And, again, as we see this... these overturning  of the gains, they're saying this openly and by saying that it's about states' rights at the  same time you then uphold states' rights as this   key element in Southern society, which is then used,  again, to fight back against federal intervention.
• 26:00 - 26:30 At a Union County dedication in North Carolina, one speaker declared that   the 15th Amendment was the most colossal blunder and crime in the history   of the world and he celebrated being  overturned as they dedicated a monument.   This was common, right? This overturning of gains by  African-Americans at monument dedications can be   seen again and again and again. And we're going to  look at one more and we'll look at it explicitly--   the dedication of UNC-Chapel Hill monument  which some of you may be familiar with by now.
• 26:30 - 27:00 And this is the speech that got me into this  topic; this is the speech that that led me to   write this book. I was not supposed to write this  book I was supposed to write a different book   on guerrilla warfare, but I decided that this  book was needed and in many ways it was what   played out in front of me that led me to realize  this. And it's, like, all dedications started with
• 27:00 - 27:30 somebody giving the monument to the veterans   and there's a series of speeches and celebrations  and here you can see a photograph of it   and then they had a Confederate  veteran speak and it was Julian Carr   and he does his typical speech: he talks about how  many soldiers went to fight and how valiant they   were and how devoted they were and the nobility  of their fighting. He talked about how they   volunteered and then he turned what he thought  the monument would teach future generations. Now   this was a monument on a college campus, so  it was aimed clearly at future generations
• 27:30 - 28:00 and he said the monument was about the success  of overturning Reconstruction and then said, "Let   me tell you what. I did..."he didn't just say, " helped that we preserve the Anglo-Saxon race   by overturning. It... he said that as well. He then says, "Let me tell you what I did; let   me tell you my part," and then he relates how  he horse whipped and in his word I'll quote
• 28:00 - 28:30 "a negro wench until her skirts hung in  shreds." On an embarrassed statement...   this is a statement of pride that he has given  and he sees as tied to this monument's dedication.  He was proud of doing this and we often think  about racism about being hatred, but it wasn't;   it's about power and social order being  maintained. We'll talk more about that in a minute.   Carr never says he hated this woman  and did he consider himself a friend
• 28:30 - 29:00 of the black community. And at the same time--as he  considered himself a friend of the black community--  he was a proud Klan member and so  this is a worthwhile takeaway. If   you take nothing else away--that racism  and white supremacy don't require hatred.   Power, opportunity, privilege, social order, and  inequality. Those are the key elements. Is hatred   part of it or propagated by it? Yes. Does it  help motivate it? Yes, but it's not required.
• 29:00 - 29:30 It's created, in many ways, by these elements and  Carr was quite proud of his violence. He not   only told about this assault on the unnamed woman;  we don't know her name yet although research does   continue on that. He announced in 1921 he had  been a member of the original Klan and in 1923   he announced he'd been a member... client. So he  was quite open about his part in Klan violence
• 29:30 - 30:00 and plan participation.... sorry... and as I mentioned,  Carr saw himself as a friend of African Americans. He was considered a moderate many... now he's  only a moderate... if we ignore the existence of   non-white supremacists. He campaigned against... if we ignored the presence of Republicans and
• 30:00 - 30:30 African-Americans who were fighting for  us. He was a moderate in the Democratic   Party of 1900. This is before the  party realignment of the century, but   he would lay out these issues as that he  was a friend of African Americans so long   as they maintain their place. He would  give money to African-American charities,   but, again, it was a friendship based on accepting  racial order, on accepting a hard dynamic where he
• 30:30 - 31:00 had power, because he had money, but it wasn't... it  was based on maintaining the color line and to him   that was more important than a black person's life. And he would routinely defend things like lynching. Now, I want to turn to a second to his  most famous political campaign in 1900.   He ran for the senate. Julian Carr runs for  senate and he would tie his Lost Cause memory   to white supremacy and to running for office.  He used his time as a Confederate soldier to
• 31:00 - 31:30 argue he was the biggest champion of white  supremacy and he tried to out-racist the   other races--he was running against  Alfred Waddell and Fernanfold Simmons--   again before the party realignment during the  20th cent... the 20th century. The conservative   party was the Democratic party and being  labeled a white supremacist wasn't a problem.   It was a requirement for election in North Carolina and one way to see party realignment
• 31:30 - 32:00 is seeing how white supremacy is viewed and how  ballot access was viewed. The 1900 campaign... a key   issue was disenfranchising African Americans. That  was the goal of the Democratic Party that year   and Carr and other Democrats were successful  in the end in disenfranchising African-Americans,   but, ultimately, Carr fails to win the Senate seat.  Why? He wasn't racist enough. Carr ran on the motto   "The White Man Shall Rule or Die," I mean, he was not  pretending he wasn't racist, but Alfred Waddell
• 32:00 - 32:30 and Fernifold Simmons had overseen the Wilmington  Race Massacre and the disenfranchisement of black   voters and were seen as more racist. And they  campaigned and won the white supremacist vote   leading Carr to lose. Now, to wrap it up, I want to end on  that final element. I mentioned earlier,   why do Americans believe Confederates fought  so well after all they lost in just four years?
• 32:30 - 33:00 Why would we recall them as such great soldiers? I mean, the United States military in   1860 was about 16,000 men; that's tiny, and  they would have to expand that military   by orders of magnitude and that takes time  to do. Now, perhaps one of the reason   the Confederates are remembered as the greatest  soldiers since Thermopylae is because they told
• 33:00 - 33:30 us so. And in doing so, they made themselves out  to be exemplars of manhood, thus claiming they   deserve the ballot. Indeed, one of the claims of  this book argues is that claims that Africa.... that   Confederates fought better than anyone else  were fundamental to upholding white supremacy.   And during that campaign in 1900, Carr put forward  the fact that, again, he was a Confederate veteran
• 33:30 - 34:00 and in one of his campaign  advertisements it said... it claimed that   Carr had spent three years in the trenches  in the dark days of 1862, 63, and 64.   Now, the problem was this... is that Julian Carr did  not spend three years in the trenches. And so   his military service suddenly became under light. Now, this was... the attacks on his military record,   to be clear, were not John Kerry and the swift  boat veterans--made up stuff. These attacks were
• 34:00 - 34:30 actually quite legitimate, it turns out. We actually  have records of his military service; he did not   serve three years in the Confederate service--  he had a deferment because he was in college   and we actually have the documents, we can actually  find the documents, and so what we find is that   he has this deferment, and then when that  deferment finally rounds out. He gets assigned
• 34:30 - 35:00 to the conscript bureau and helps conscript  others, force others. So when he would present   white southerners as all volunteering, he knew  better, because he forced people to go fight.   In fact, he himself was a conscript and when  he finally... the conscript bureau realizes that   they're not getting any more men, they stand  all those working on the conscript bureau   off to fight themselves. He ends up at the front  and he gets made a messenger and so we actually
• 35:00 - 35:30 don't even know if he fought at all. We know...  we don't know if he fought... well, he may have,   we know he didn't fight long ago and  we know he didn't volunteer, despite often   telling, yes, he did. So he was stretching the truth,  at the very least, of his own military service.   So do Confederate soldiers fight better than any  other soldiers ever? This is a fundamental question   that I often get asked and the answer is "I don't  know yet." To be honest and I think it's worth
• 35:30 - 36:00 acknowledging when we don't know something... they  certainly were not as uniformly devoted as some   historians still depict them, and it seems  that at least part of the reason we think   that they're so devoted is early 20th century  racial politics--this memory that all whites   supported the Confederacy uniformly provided a  historical narrative where whites voted as a bloc,   where all whites would vote together. It justified  whites voting a certain way. It was also used to
• 36:00 - 36:30 justify disenfranchisement with claims that white  men had earned the vote by showing their valor as   Confederates while black men had not, despite  the fact that thousands, in fact, over a hundred   thousand African-American southern... Southerners  had fought for the United States military. Again and again, the literacy requirements  there were only for African Americans to   do the "grandfather clause" were held  up as justified because white men had
• 36:30 - 37:00 proven themselves already during the Civil  War, once again ignoring black Southerners,   but when did facts ever stop a good story? That was  useful politically. And so it was used to justify   terrible things through lies. And so i could give  an entire talk about how we recall the Confederate   war effort and different Confederate commanders. We don't have time to do all of that,  so what I want to sort of remind you is we have  a lot to find out still. We need a reassessment
• 37:00 - 37:30 of the Confederate soldier, and if you want  to know more about how Confederate soldiers   were misremembered, you can buy my book and for  those wanting other books to read about the Lost   Cause memory, I just want to close by just sort of  giving a quick shout out as a few good places to   start. In addition to my own book, Carolyn Janney's Remembering the Civil War, David Blight's Race and   Reunion, and Karen Cox Dixie's Daughters all do  an excellent job explaining how Lost Cause memory
• 37:30 - 38:00 functioned along with other forms of memory as  well, because it's worth noting Lost Cause memory   was the memory of white southerners. There's an  entirely other memory that African Americans have   of the war, there's an entire other memory that  Northern whites have, and one of the things the   book talks about is there's actually a memory of  white Southern Unionists that largely is erased,   but is worth remembering as well and the book  talks quite a bit about that in chapter three;   but I'll close there for questions and I'll  be happy to take any questions and I know that
• 38:00 - 38:30 Dr. Newhall has probably gone  through them and has some to ask.   Yes, I do, thank you so much, Adam; that was wonderful. All right, so, we definitely have some questions   that, I think, really hearken to some of the things  that you were talking about throughout this   lecture and I'll start with one which is, you  know, that idea that not all white people in the   South were uniformly committed to the cause,  right, to the to the Confederacy. So there's one
• 38:30 - 39:00 particular question about western North Carolina  exhibiting quite a bit of support for the Union   during the Civil War so the question centers on,   "Was white supremacy also exhibited there as well? Do we see these kind of similar commemoration  efforts even though there is support for the Union?"   Yeah, this is a great question and I would  actually say it's not just western North Carolina--   we all know western North Carolina, the Appalachian  Mountains, people always focus on it; there's
• 39:00 - 39:30 a small population of African Americans, less  slaveholders, so it's a place where people   assume will be, right, for Unionism and, indeed, it  is. There is plenty of dissent, if not Unionism,   and I want to draw a distinction here, because I  think it's worth remembering there are those   who oppose the Confederacy because they don't want  to go to war and conscription pisses them off or   that they think the best way to maintain  slavery is to stay in the Union. There's a   lot of reasons why someone might not support the  Confederacy and they're everywhere; there are
• 39:30 - 40:00 somewhere in the order of a hundred thousand, if I remember correctly, white Southerners who serve   in the United States military. Now, to give you  some scale on that, that's bigger than the Army of   Northern Virginia ever was at one time and that's  a massive shift of manpower when you think about   it; and so the... this shift in manpower is  important to the war, but it's everywhere and
• 40:00 - 40:30 one of the things the book talks about is it talks  about the way that there was a memory--for a   time--of principled Unionism and, indeed, if you look  at during the Reconstruction era, there are these   whole political campaigns to get the Unionist  vote where people are trying to appeal saying,   "I didn't treat deserters badly; I didn't treat  conscripts badly; the other guy did; vote for me,"   and, ultimately, that memory--which was premised,  actually, on sort of being opposed to your
• 40:30 - 41:00 neighbors, right, if you're a Unionist who resists  the Confederacy due to principles, somebody has to   be pushing back against you--and so it's a  problematic memory, because it maintains divisions   within the white community and so the Lost  Cause is used to paper over it and one of   the things the book talks about is the  ways that you can lure people, so to speak,   into rejecting their own past, their own experience,  and you can have an individual, for instance,   who avoided conscription as long as he could,  was captured by Confederate soldiers and forced
• 41:00 - 41:30 into the military, and after one month in the  Confederate military deserted, went home, took up   arms when Confederate soldiers showed up to arrest  him, and to fight back, and then fled to Union lines   and he would get a pension for  being a loyal Confederate soldier   despite not having served long enough--according  to the law--despite being disqualified because   he deserted, but despite being disqualified,  because he took up arms against the Confederacy,
• 41:30 - 42:00 I mean, he's disqualified... but  he's remembered and when he dies   how's he remembered? He's remembered as a  Confederate and as a loyal Confederate, and   so even pensions can be used as a form to attract  former Unionists or former dissenters, if you will,   to the Lost Cause; and so the Lost Cause  is... makes room for many people--white people, I   should say--and, in some cases, even some African  Americans and the book talks about that as well.
• 42:00 - 42:30 But, yeah, Unionism; there's a whole memory  of Unionism that's been largely overlooked   by scholars with a few exceptions. There are some  scholars, like John Inscoe, who've looked at it, but   there needs more work on it. Yeah, yes, sorry, sounds  getting a little weird, and, yeah, I mean you talk   quite a bit about the use of fraud potentially  as a way of getting some political support in the   South as well, right, with giving out so many  pensions to former Confederates as a means of kind
• 42:30 - 43:00 of encouraging democratic patterns and things like  that. It's overt. I mean, they literally bribe people;   they literally have letters in the archives where  somebody writes a government official and is like,   "My pension got taken away; people called me  a deserter--or whatever, you know--or I made too   much money" depending on how he lost his  pension--"I promise I'll vote Democratic   if you give me my pension back," and on the top of  the letter scrawled by a government official is,   "Write back, tell him he'd get his pension."  It's like October 12th, you know, this letter is
• 43:00 - 43:30 being repo... being replied to, saying, "We'll give  you your pension, because, you know, November is   around the corner," and the guy gets his pension  back, sure enough. You can actually track these   guys losing their pensions when they're detected;  every so often, a deserter gets detected--someone   complains, they lose their pension, like, within a  year they get it back. It's not enforced, because,   ultimately, as long as you're willing  to toe the line on the Lost Cause, it's   it's a cheap way to keep people  politically loyal; it's a form of spoils,
• 43:30 - 44:00 and it's also--from the point of view of  the government, right, if you're a county official--  you're gonna have to take care of an... if you  have someone who's really, you know, poor, someone   really poor off who needs to be supported,  they're elderly and they're in their 80s,   they can't take care of themselves, there's  no welfare yet; there's no sort of safety net   at all, and it's the county's responsibility to  take care of unless you get this pension, right?
• 44:00 - 44:30 So you have letters in there where, you know,  you have people being like, "Oh, we don't know   if this guy... what unit this guy was in, or really  if he ever served, but we really need this   pension for him; can we get him a pension?" I mean,  because it's a way of also providing welfare   only to whites and this is the sort of interesting  thing--it's a form of providing welfare to elderly   white men and elderly white women, because  their widows get it and then a very small   select group of African Americans--literally,  a tiny number who serve their own purpose--
• 44:30 - 45:00 are able to often get a smaller amount of money--  very small amount of money--if they promise...   if they sort of promise to support white  supremacy is basically the gimmick. And so, yeah,   I mean, pensions are a tool of power, because money  is the tool of power. I notice there's a question   in here about philanthropy and I was just  sort of glanced at it that. Yeah, Carr donated lots
• 45:00 - 45:30 of money to African-American schools and he  was even praised by various African-American   intellectuals as being a friend of the neighbor  of the of African-Americans and, here's the thing,   the reason they were dependent  upon his money, upon his donations,   was because of the policies he pushed that didn't  fund African-American education, and, for them to   get that money required them to tow the racial  line and he would actually give speeches
• 45:30 - 46:00 where he would say as much; it would basically say  that Africa... to... at... to African American graduating   classes. He got invited, because he'd given all  this money, right, he got to give this speech to   them where he says, "Stop telling Northerners  that you're being mistreated in the South   or things will happen to you; as long as you  don't do that, though, you'll be okay." I mean, so,  he's using history as a threat frequently  and he's using his money as a tool of power,
• 46:00 - 46:30 because in a capitalistic society, money is power,  and so the dependencies---yes, is he not as terrible   as some of his contemporaries? No question, but he's  definitely had no qualms about that violence   and that money was premised upon his requirements  being met right and if you didn't meet those,   you don't get that money and so the people who  are praising him are frequently doing it because
• 46:30 - 47:00 they have to praise him to get that money. So take that praise with a grain of salt;   I want to put on that taking  things with a grain of salt train.   We've got a question about how, you know, given  Carr's lies, exaggerations, fabrications about his   service, how much can we really believe  in what he says? So when he claims that   he horse-whipped this woman in the streets? and does it even matter, you know, if he doesn't   do it so long as he's saying it? I mean, the  fact that he's willing to brag about it, I think,
• 47:00 - 47:30 is telling, right? I think that's the first  thing we have to say, right? It's definitely   the case that we need to be clear on that there is evidence that was discovered by Ryan Fennessy discovered evidence that the  whipping did happen. There is an account--it's   in 1866 or seven though--there was an account of  the Carr boys, I think if, I remember the quote, right,   whipping... it's like a hard document to find... it  was in the National Archives, I think, is where he
• 47:30 - 48:00 found it; there's a report though that the Carr boys basically had assaulted someone and so there   is an assault. Whether that's the same assault  and he's off on the date or it's a second assault   is really the question I have, because it could  very well be a second assault. So do I think they   assault having you. I do. I don't think the  assault is made up, because there is that other   document that we found from Reconstruction. The  question I have is was it in 1865 like
• 48:00 - 48:30 he claims; it's a 65 or is it 66 or 67 it's  an easy thing to... must remember perhaps... did he really sleep with a shotgun under his bed  afterwards? I don't know, but probably not, but   that's not a good, safe way to sleep--with  a shotgun under your pillow; it ends badly,   don't do that, but, yeah, I know... I think we can trust him that he really did solve   it, but, ultimately, I think, yeah, we... it almost  doesn't matter, because we know these assaults   happened by other people and he's celebrating  them regardless of whether he did it or not.
• 48:30 - 49:00 Yeah, absolutely, and so thinking about  these distortions and falsehoods that   are common in war memories across wars and  among all types of veterans, how do you reckon   with things like the the monuments being put  up--to to aim messages at other groups like   white moderates--Republicans, Democrats--and also  thinking about putting... waving the bloody shirt in
• 49:00 - 49:30 conversation with the Lost Cause how do you  evaluate those kind of two different strains of   memory coming out of this period and and how  do we put them in conversation with one another?   Yeah, I mean, there's pushback, right, I mean,  I think this is really valuable and when we talk   about, people often say, "Well, people don't know  better; they didn't know it was a lie." I've gotten   some pushback with people rejecting my argument  that "these are lies; these are knowing lies"   and not just mistakes and this is the same debate  we have today when we talk about how the media
• 49:30 - 50:00 deals with lies in politics. Do you say he's lying  when the President of the United States lies or   do you say he's mistaken and that's a really  important thing and, basically, one of the ways   you know it's a lie is that people keep telling  them, "Hey, that's not true" and he keeps saying it,   right, so if you keep saying something  when you we've been told it's not true,   it's clear you know there's a counter narrative  and the same thing happens here. Julian Carr knows   slavery is the cause of the war, because he keeps  telling people not to say slavery is the cause of   the war, right? He knows somebody's pushing back and  he knows it's important that people not toe that
• 50:00 - 50:30 line; he knows the stakes, that's why he literally  will say to an African-American audience, you know, buy into this narrative of history and,  interestingly enough, when he's talking   to different audiences, he'll hedge on the  causes of the war. He'll actually sort of   acknowledge slavery plays a role when he's talking  to African Americans, because African Americans
• 50:30 - 51:00 would--if you look at the war from his perspective,  right--African-Americans not running away when the   war would determine their freedom and staying  loyal as he sees it is all it makes Confederate   soldiers all the more impressive and it makes the  Confederate all the more impressive if the war is   about slavery and so it's the one time he's okay  talking about. So they know it's a lie and so you   have these counter narratives and they're in  conflict, right, frequently and, ultimately, they   find common ground at times, but it's messy  when you have different narratives, right,
• 51:00 - 51:30 and so you find this common ground and, you know,  some people sort of see this as a reconciliation   or reunion at the expense of African-American  memory and I think that's not inaccurate, but it's also and accepting of certain narratives that  benefit both sides. So, for instance, the aspect of   the Confederate... if Confederate soldiers are the  greatest soldiers ever and you're a Union soldier
• 51:30 - 52:00 or a former Union soldier, having Confederate  soldiers be some of the greatest soldiers ever is   great, because it means you fought better than the  greatest soldiers ever, right? It makes you better,   so if you have basically the two greatest sides  ever fought each other is the story, you'll buy   into that because it pumps you up as well and so  elements of the Lost Cause are designed to accept   other people in and to be sold outward. It's not  just for domestic consumption; it's for consumption
• 52:00 - 52:30 in the North, in the west, and internationally--  as I mentioned, you know, Carr's pushing this stuff   out in Manila in the Philippines in 1916  and, ultimately, the Lost Cause memory is... becomes heavily dominant in how we understand  Reconstruction for a long time and it's now been   displaced, at least academically, but there's still  plenty of people who see Reconstruction as   this great tragedy; that it was instituted as  opposed to a tragedy, that it wasn't continued
• 52:30 - 53:00 but it's used to justify things like apartheid  in South Africa when you look at the guys who are   designing apartheid, one of the ways that justifies, "Well, we can't do what they did in the South during   Reconstruction or things go bad; we can't give the  vote to African Americans" and so they're using   this example and so these myths, these memories  are definitely in conversation with other   strands of memory. Does that answer  the question? I'm not sure it does, but   I like that. Hey, you'll have your email  ready and available for anybody who wants to ask
• 53:00 - 53:30 further questions. For sure. So, yeah, getting  into that as well a little bit more. Somebody   asked if you could speak a little bit more about  how the Lost Cause turned the Civil War into a   white man's war and subverted African-Americans' part in fighting the war and how that played into white supremacy; just how did that kind of...  how did that transition happen where we have this   200,000 men-strong force of African Americans  fighting for the war, really affecting victory   towards the end years of the war itself; how  did that change over time and become this
• 53:30 - 54:00 white supremacist memory of what the war was?  Yeah, I mean, so African-Americans after the war,   like, "Hey, there's a right side and a wrong side  and this was a war about freedom," I mean, they're   clear on what they want this war remembered as, at least some of them, you know? They're literally,   you know... Frederick Douglass is out there  saying there's a right side and a wrong side.   And this memory of black male military  service is supposed to convince people   that, "Hey, we've earned the ballot," and they say...  that you have African-Americans... were like
• 54:00 - 54:30 "I've earned the ballot; I fought." Lincoln,  in his last address before he dies, says...   you know... he isn't... he historically not been in  favor of enfranchising African Americans, but,   he says you know, those who served should probably  be enfranchised essentially. So black military   service is a key political tool and the memory of  it. So one of the reasons is it has to be forgotten--   and this is why you won't find in the early 20th  century, you'll never find anyone claiming they're
• 54:30 - 55:00 black Confederates in the early 20th century,  you'll find lots of claims of loyal slaves because   if black men could serve and could serve well as  white men then the argument that white men should   be allowed to vote and black men should dies  real fast, and so they erase African-American   troops from the United States military in their  memory of the war largely. The other sort of... so... that I would say that they push back  against it heavily and African-American memory
• 55:00 - 55:30 pushes back stronger than any other form  of memory against the Lost Cause and you   see African-Americans push back; that's where you  get them... African-Americans have been objecting to   the Lost Cause since it formed; in fact, Ethan  Keitel and Blaine Roberts have said that the   Lost Cause really starts as a counter narrative  to African-American memory and I think they're   right; is that you have this African-American... American and the Lost Cause counters; it say, "No,   you can't... we don't want to give you the vote."  And they... so this erasure is really interesting,
• 55:30 - 56:00 because one of the things that happens in  this erasure is that it's accompanied at the   same time by this myth of loyal slaves and these  myths of loyal slaves later gets remembered as   black Confederates and what you have in reality  is you have African-Americans impressed to labor   for the Confederacy and these documents  are fascinating that you can find about   this impressment. Lots of them... lots of these  impressed individuals run away and they...
• 56:00 - 56:30 some people don't want to allow their enslaved  people to be impressed, but they don't have a   choice. They're forced to dig trenches basically or  whatever other service they're put to to labor for   the Confederacy; they're not given arms; they're  not considered soldiers it's very clear   and in the early 20th century when  they're given these pensions, they're   being remembered as loyal slaves and they'll say  as much. These are not soldiers, they say in all the   documents; these are not soldiers these are slave  pensions and the pensions are worthless they don't
• 56:30 - 57:00 transfer to the widows like a veteran's  pension does. They're not authorized--at the   same time--they're authorized later and they're  secondary--they don't get funded as much, so, like, if   there's not enough money, they get cut first. I mean,  it's very clear these are second-tier pensions   and these have become now remembered as black  soldiers--these documents about these pensions are   now remembered as black soldiers, but they weren't  remembered as black soldiers when they got the
• 57:00 - 57:30 pension; they weren't black soldiers remembers...  black soldiers when they were forced to labor.   In many ways they saw many of them--I would  argue--likely saw these pensions as an early form   of reparations, back pay for the labor. In fact,  one of them actually has a comment by the guy   in his bench and he says, "I worked for  six months and I've never yet been paid"   and that's why he's applying for his pension, all  right? So he's like, "I'm waiting for my back pay," and so you can see these as an early form  of reparations even, interestingly enough. But
• 57:30 - 58:00 what's weird is that some of the pictures even  of African-American troops from the Civil War   have been re-interpreted inaccurately as pictures  of black Confederates even so you see a like 180   degree turn--you not only erase African-American  troops, you create African-American Confederate   troops as being tied to racism, becomes unpopular  really in and Kevin Levine has written an   entire book on it. I've written two chapters on  it, but I think the two books go together
• 58:00 - 58:30 well, but they they did not see themselves... in fact,  those African-Americans who said "I was a soldier"  have their pensions rejected because they say, "Oh, you must be lying; those African-Americans who   say I dug trenches loyally and stayed loyal to my  master," they don't investigate, even if they were...   some of them were, like, four years old when the  war ended and I'm pretty sure they didn't dig   trenches as a four-year-old so, I mean, again,  it's all about memory, it's not about reality.
• 58:30 - 59:00 On that pensions question, there are a couple  questions from people in the audience about   how Confederate pensions were even paid for?  What was the course for those sources?   So this is a really important thing, because federal pensions for the U.S. military, right, the   Union, if you will, but I called... they called the  U.S. military they were paid for by federal tax
• 59:00 - 59:30 dollars. The U.S. government pays them. Confederate  pensions are different; they're funded state   by state. So every state has a different  system; they're all slightly different. They start at different times; they all tend to be  around the same period, I mean, they're all within,   you know, they all sort of expand in the early 20th  century and I'm over-generalizing a little bit   here, but they're less than federal  pensions, because they're paid by state   tax dollars. There is this plan at one point to  try to expand it and and try to get the federal
• 59:30 - 60:00 government to pay it and they won't-- they never  do it. There are no Confederate soldier ever   receives a pension from the U.S. government. By  the time any authorized... any laws are passed that   authorize such pensions, all Confederate veterans  are dead and the only ones left are fake veterans.   And so there is no Confederate pension ever  paid by the federal government to a Confederate   veteran. But... and then, in many states, not all, widows are eligible and exact eligibility varies,
• 60:00 - 60:30 again, from state to state: whether you had to be  disabled or not and how much you got paid, they   had different amounts based on disability, right?  If you're 100% disability, you get more money or   less money and it changes from year to year. But it's and only, I think, it's five states, if   I remember correctly, give pensions to formerly  enslaved people who were for impressed laborers   and all of them are later and, in some  cases, they actually, like, backtrack from it, because
• 60:30 - 61:00 they're like, "Oh, we don't want to have to give that  much money," and so they actually, like, have   debates about whether we should de-authorize it. So,  like, South Carolina has too many applications   and they're like, "That's too much for us to pay,  so we're gonna change the rules and make it more   strict on who gets it." So these pensions are state level; they're run by the state and   then there are county boards that administer  them, but they're minuscule compared to the
• 61:00 - 61:30 federal pensions. When you think about amounts  of money; not minuscule, but significantly smaller   now. Great answer, thank you, we've also got a  few questions about monuments throughout this   period; one asking whether Civil War monuments  in the North were being erected around the same   time period as these Confederate monuments; if so, is this an attempt to counter Northern   self-celebrations as well and in another question  is can you compare the motive of Confederate
• 61:30 - 62:00 monument-building with those of Northern  monument-building? Yeah, so these are great   questions. First off, Confederate... there are some  Confederate monuments all over the world. I mean   you can find them... there are Confederate monuments  in, like, California; there's one in, like, L.A., if I   remember right; there was one in Boston or there  was--it's been removed now, that was the site of   where prisoners are, so the ones in the North tend  to be either at battlefields or at former
• 62:00 - 62:30 prison sites or in border states, places like  Kentucky, right? Kentucky becomes... there's an   old saying amongst other historians that Kentucky  becomes joins the Confederacy after the war ends,   because you know two-thirds of Kentuckians who  serve in the war fight for the United States and   one-third fight for the Confederacy, yet it's  largely, like, if you go to their commemorative   landscape, it's far more Confederate, right, because  this is about... when we're talking about monuments,   you can you can learn a lot from monuments about  the period they're put up, but monuments don't
• 62:30 - 63:00 teach you much about the thing they normally  commemorate, right. They teach you far more about   the Jim Crow era than they teach you about the  Civil War and, frequently, they're inaccurate,   right? You see these monuments that say,  you know, "No nation rose so fair and white   or fell so pure of crime" and there's one  of those 10 miles from Andersonville. I mean,   wow, right, you know 13,000... nearly 13,000  Americans die there and it's like, I'm not   sure they wrote "so far in white and fell so pure"  crime when you're that close to Andersonville is a
• 63:00 - 63:30 real interesting statement and I think  it's on purpose, right, it's pushing   back, right, again, you have this conflict  between narratives of the war, but the monuments put up in the North largely were  aimed at specific sort of sites, right? They're not   more general; usually these ones I know of--  I don't study Union monuments or monuments   up North--there are people who do, but I  would say that a few things to remember.
• 63:30 - 64:00 Those monuments... are monuments can serve  multiple purposes; at some time, monuments   can both memorialize the dead and be used to  celebrate white supremacy--they're not mutually   exclusive; in fact, monuments serve  different purposes for different groups   and symbols gain meanings; they rarely lose  meanings, right? It's hard to wash a symbol of   meaning right when someone flies a Confederate  flag, it's not an unfair assumption to go--
• 64:00 - 64:30 especially if you're African-American-- I don't  know if I want to like go up to that guy and   talk to him and ask him about why he's flying a  Confederate flag because it might be that he's   racist because that flag has ties to racism. Whether the god means it to mean that or not,   it's a symbol. Symbols by their very nature are  not direct; they are symbolic, right, and so you're   interpreting these things. Same with monuments;  when you're dealing with these monuments, they can   mean multiple things at multiple times and so  they're pushing the Lost Cause memory, no question,
• 64:30 - 65:00 up North when they're putting these monuments up. There's a series of monuments around Gettysburg   that are devoted to who went farthest--this  is one of my favorite sets of monuments--is   there's two different monuments one put up by  Virginians and one put up by North Carolina   it's both claiming to be the farthest point in  Pickett's Charge. What exactly for this means,   I still have yet to get a good answer on and  you ask any military historian. I don't know what   you're talking about, right? Furthest isn't really  a meaning is it furthest to the east for this into
• 65:00 - 65:30 the enemy lines for this march it's this vague  term, but whoever went furthest was the bravest   so they all want this claim and so these  monuments are often about um claiming valor and   especially these these ones about the High Water  Mark of the Confederacy are just sort of   fascinating to me in the way that they pretend to  be historical marketing, but they're really about
• 65:30 - 66:00 proving that one state or the other fought better  and so and I think it's worth remembering that   monuments put up by the Union have multiple  meaning meanings as well and who was involved   in this creation, who was included. I'll give  you an example: there's a monument in Pittsfield, Massachusetts, that has one of my  ancestors on it. He died. Still the monument...
• 66:00 - 66:30 and it's like that's cool, right, it's  this cool monument to my ancestor and   it has all the veterans  who died from Pittsfield,   except African Americans from Pittsfield who  died are not included. They're left off   and we know there are members of the 54th  Massachusetts who died from Pittsfield,  right, so these monuments are not without their  own entanglements in how they're shaping memory;   when they put forward here are the people of  Pittsfield who fought for the United States,
• 66:30 - 67:00 they are excluding people and so I think it's... these things are complex; they're not easy. Yeah, there's a lot of overlap in interest;  convergence, it seems, among these groups and   how they use memory and commemoration. All right, we've got a lot of questions so,   I'm going to try to get to some of them as we're  wrapping up; some really good ones here. Let's see...   somebody was asking about commemorative groups  like the U.D.C. and the S.C.V. in this modern context
• 67:00 - 67:30 and how do we... do you see them as benign historical  honoring ancestors or are they only existing as   ways to continue to promote white supremacy  and how do we reckon with these commemorative   groups in in this modern period? Yeah, so the  United Confederate Veterans and the Confederate   veterans are problematic organizations, obviously,  historically... and, you know, I think people
• 67:30 - 68:00 join them often for very sincere and reasons, right,  like, "I want to know more about my ancestor this is   a way to find out more about my ancestor" you  know? I'm... I understand that as a historian, I  want to know more about my ancestors, right, I mean,  it's cool. There's a difference between, though,   as a historian, I would say, between celebrating our  ancestors and studying our ancestors and a   lot of times, people are hesitant to find out facts  about their ancestors that aren't so happy, like
• 68:00 - 68:30 give you an example. I once helped the gentleman  who was doing some genealogical research and I won't say his name, but I... you know... I  found his ancestor and his ancestor was in the   brig of a U.S. navy ship repeatedly, because he  was drunk and it's like he suddenly was less   interested in the research I was providing him  about his ancestor when he found out his ancestor   was not this naval hero, but actually in the brig,  because he was kept being repeatedly had been
• 68:30 - 69:00 in trouble for being drunk, right? People don't  want to know the bad parts and so I think the   problem that these organizations often face is  is twofold: one is their historical legacy is   that these they have been tied to white supremacy  since their founding and it wasn't an accident.  They were open about this, that this was  about white supremacy and so I think that, you know, people have talked about how, know,  the Sons of Confederate Veterans in recent years
• 69:00 - 69:30 or the last 30 years have been taken over by  white supremacists and there's these   conversations about sort of battles for control  of these organizations in the modern era,   but these organizations had historically been  controlled by white supremacists and individuals   in the you know 80s and 90s had tried to move  them away from their white supremacist roots and they're moving perhaps back, but I think  the sort of unquestioning belief in heroes
• 69:30 - 70:00 and the unwillingness to think  critically about our ancestors is   inherently problematic, because what it says  and the obsession with owning the past,   because these monuments present an exclusionary  memory, right, if this is... a... they're trying to   erase my history, but these monuments are already  erasing someone else's history, because they're   not inclusive of the entire story; they're  only telling part of the story and so
• 70:00 - 70:30 it's an inheritance in many ways and and so I   personally do not belong to any of  these organizations obviously and   they... but they are problematic  organizations, because they still push narratives   that are used to uphold white supremacy today and  justify white supremacy today, whether knowingly   or unknowingly, they are pushing a narrative that  allows a white supremacist view of the world today
• 70:30 - 71:00 and that's a problem, because a.) is ahistorical  and b.) it's justifying white supremacy and so I do see these organizations as really problematic,  but I think they've always been problematic   for a variety of reasons. I don't know if  that's a good answer, but it's an answer, I guess that's the best we can do sometimes, right?   Great, all right, well, I'll end on one last  question then and I think that kind of fits
• 71:00 - 71:30 into what you were just talking about is do you  think that there were a few, you know, "legendary Confederate commanders reputations like  Robert E. Lee, "Stonewall" Jackson, J.E.B. Stuart  who've become generalized in uplifting the  view of Confederate soldiers as part of this   Lost Cause memory, like you said, kind of this  hero connection; can you say that one more time?   This kind of heroic connection per you  know connecting general soldiers to to the
• 71:30 - 72:00 right, the reputations of these great generals?  Yeah, I mean, the generals are clearly... become examples, right;  they become sort of the exemplars   and they're part of the Lost Cause  and they're key to the Lost Cause. Robert E. Lee becomes the saint of the  Confederacy--the patron saint, you could argue,
• 72:00 - 72:30 and there's plenty of lies about  him. You could write an entire book   about the lies around Robert E. Lee and  there's some great books that debunk a lot   of these lies; for instance, Reading the  Man and The Making of Robert E. Lee are two   big books that do an excellent job of  this; that was looking for more reading, but   yeah, the confetti, the sort of creating  these heroes out of generals is a parallel   to creating this hero of the common soldier, right,  you have these common soldier monuments that are
• 72:30 - 73:00 the sort of stand-in for all Confederates  and then you have these monuments to Robert E.   Lee, "Stonewall" Jackson, and they're remembered  as the world's greatest generals, right and there's a problem with that memory in my mind  and that is that it's uncritical, it's   just not critical of the fact that, for starters,  they lost, like, let's start with that issue; that   we don't really always talk about--the fact  that the Confederacy loses, that's one aspect of
• 73:00 - 73:30 the Lost Cause that I think people forget is  how much it sort of shifts our understanding.   But, yeah, I think that the generals are a  fundamental part of remembering Confederates.   The soldiers are the Spartans and you  know Lee is their leader just like...   I'm forgetting the Spartan general's  name now that I'm on the spot, but Leonidas...I forget which general it  is, but, anyways, but they're always, you
• 73:30 - 74:00 know, sort of comparing them and so celebrating  Robert E. Lee as the perfect Southern gentleman   is part of the Lost Cause in the same way  that remembering Confederate soldiers is   the greatest soldiers ever was and they come  together, because it's... it helps explain loss,   right? They were to... you have the old joke,  you know, Robert E. Lee didn't surrender; what was it; usually this Grant just took  his sword and he was too much of a gentleman to
• 74:00 - 74:30 escort back is, like, a joke I heard growing.  Up it's a terrible joke that Robert Lee didn't   surrender; he just had his sword stolen. It's silly,  but it's this sort of joke that allows you to   see the Confederates as superior: they  had superior gentlemen as their commanders,   despite the fact that, let's be clear, Robert  E. Lee and "Stonewall" Jackson committed treason,   per se, like treason is outlined in the  U.S. Constitution it's very clear on
• 74:30 - 75:00 what it qualifies as treason--taking up arms  against the United States government is treason;   that's what's called... this is not me being  political, this is just what the Constitution says.   They took an oath to the U.S. Constitution, right, they took it out to the United   States when they were at West Point and they broke that up. Now you can say,   "Oh, they resigned," but oaths don't usually  end with a resignation, but regardless,
• 75:00 - 75:30 you know, they... that aspect of them is erased in  the same way that Robert E. Lee being remembered as   kind to enslaved people despite the fact being  remembered by enslaved people as a terrible master   who was horrible and who separated families and  and we look at the documents; it turns out Robert   Lee was very much an advocate for slavery and very  much tried to maintain enslaved people himself
• 75:30 - 76:00 and so this this rewriting these lies they apply  not only to the big picture, but the small picture   and these tiny lies build up to create the  bigger lie of the Lost Cause or as I call it   the False Cause, which then build up hold up the  biggest lie of all which is white supremacy   and so that's sort of the  structure of how these lies work.
• 76:00 - 76:30 Great, well thank you so much; we've reached the  end of our time here, so I'll just wrap things up   with us here tonight, but thank you so much for  being here, Dr. Danby, was really fascinating and   I'm sorry we didn't get to everyone's questions; we  had quite a few coming in there towards the end, so   thank you, everybody, for your interest. Please feel  free to forward your questions that we didn't get   to to Dr. Danby, to myself, Dr. Quigley, we'll be happy  to engage with you moving forward. This will also   be posted on C-Span and the VCCWS YouTube  website, so keep an eye out and we'll keep you
• 76:30 - 77:00 all informed, but with that I want to say, thank you  so much again; I appreciate having you here tonight,   Dr. Danby, and thank you, everyone, for being here  as well and we'll see you all soon come spring.