September 2, 2018
MY CORNER by Boyd
Cathey
Prof. James
Robertson and Rob Christensen Write on the Mania and Lunacy of Destroying the
Symbols of Our History
Where Are the Other
Mainstream Voices?
Friends,
In case
you haven’t noticed—and I wager that you have—we live in an insane age, an
epoch that the late British critic, novelist, poet and essayist, the great
Christian writer G. K. Chesterton would have surely denominated as a “time of
lunacy” in which the lunatic runs the asylum and reason and genuine thought are
nearly extinguished. Or that the great Irish poet William Butler Yeats, writing
his poem “The Second Coming” almost exactly one-hundred years ago, might have
described as one in which,
Things fall apart; the centre cannot hold;
Mere anarchy is loosed upon the world,
The blood-dimmed tide is loosed, and everywhere
The ceremony of innocence is drowned;
The best lack all conviction, while the worst
Are full of passionate intensity.
Mere anarchy is loosed upon the world,
The blood-dimmed tide is loosed, and everywhere
The ceremony of innocence is drowned;
The best lack all conviction, while the worst
Are full of passionate intensity.
So it is
with the manic and unhinged frenzy to bring down monuments not just honoring
Confederate veterans, but honoring almost anyone—as long as he be a white male
who in some way can be tagged as representing European (i.e., white) Christian
civilization, its culture, and its traditions.
Those who
rave and fume and take matters into their own hands, both against law and
against the wishes of a large majority of our citizenry—it has been documented
and illustrated numerous times—are mostly a small, very loud and very zealous
minority, composed of various revolutionary groups, openly Marxist and
Communist Workers World Party zealots, Antifa radicals, Black Lives Matter, and
a few left wing sentimental Christians who have in fact given up any semblance
of or relationship to traditional Christianity.
You would
think that our established and ruling elites and those who mostly govern our
states and nation, benefiting from the culture and knowledge that they would
have supposedly received from the legacy and understanding of our collective
history—you would think that they would stoutly oppose the unbridled
shenanigans and violence of those groups, that they would recoil, recalling the
legacy of law and the comprehension of history.
You would
think that this would be the case—but, in large part, it is not. For most of
those elites have run to the tall grass, seek not to face the real and very
critical historical and cultural issues confronting them, search for a way to
avoid making decisions—that is, for an “out” that will mollify the bands of
roving extremists, those brain-corrupted lunatics whose mad objective is the
destruction of the very culture that has given them sustenance.
After the
toppling of the “Silent Sam” Confederate monument on the campus of the
University of North Carolina on August 20 and a subsequent riot there on August
25, and after meetings of the UNC Board of Trustees and the university system
Board of Governors, Chancellor Carol Folt’s response was just one more example
of the kind of pusillanimous response we have come so accustomed to from far
too many academic leaders and politicians: a fearful search for a way to
placate the lunatic left, look for a way to not be labeled a ”racist” or “white
supremacist,” at all costs and ignoring both history and state statutes.
Despite
Chancellor Folt’s fear of her raving left flank (both student and academic) and
her actions against not only the university system, but against the law of the
land and the wishes of a majority of North Carolinians, there are still a few
leaders of prominence nationally who enjoy respect in their careers who have
spoken and written about the folly of removing our monuments and who have taken
the long view, examining these issues from an historical perspective as to what
this present madness of cultural obliteration and the attack on memory—and that
surely is what it is—is all about.
I offer
two items about them and by them. The first is a piece on the views of Dr.
James “Bud” Robertson, Professor Emeritus of History at Virginia Tech. Dr.
Robertson is, undoubtedly, the nation’s leading authority and historian of the
War Between the States. In his long life (he is 88) he has published forty
books on the topic, including a multi-prize winning biography of Stonewall
Jackson, one of finest books of history written in the past fifty years. Robertson staunchly opposes the removal of the
monuments, and this article from The
American Thinker (August 26, 2018) explains why. Although his expressed
views relate to Virginia, they are equally applicable to other states and
locations as well.
(There is
an hour long video of Robertson expatiating at length on his views, with a link
embedded in the article. As might be expected, various frenzied leftist types
have attempted to damn Robertson and use the tried-and-true racist and white
supremacist meme to attack him: he is, some of them say, “old and garrulous,
the product of another [and presumably unenlightened and bigoted] age,” so his “racist
blather” may be forgiven, but not excused. Yet, Robertson has never been in his
long and distinguished career even remotely connected to such views; indeed, up
until recently he has been praised by the historical profession—that is, until
now, when his probity and honesty have compelled him to set the record straight
and incur the wrath of all those intellectual pygmies who claim to be “historians,”
but in reality are nothing more than unlovely ideological spear-holders for the
advancing tide of cultural rot that is literally trashing both history and
memory.)
The
second item is by someone I have known more or less for thirty years, a rare
breed these days, a kind of classic liberal who is both reflective and pensive,
and who writes well. Years ago there were many Rob Christensens who wrote
fluently and who were carried by newspapers like The (Raleigh) News &
Observer. Indeed, other than
Pulitzer Prize-winning Edwin Yoder, I can’t think of many other mainstream columnists
who would fall into this category these days. But Christensen does, and it is
something of a minor miracle that the foaming-at-the-mouth lunatic left editors
of the N & O would let him appear—but they did, and I pass it on as the
second piece today.
-----------------------------------------
August 26, 2018
Confederate Monuments and the Destruction of a Nation's History
They tore another Confederate
statue down. A mob of misinformed lawless miscreants in North Carolina,
ignorant of history but allowed to alter history. Violating law and
allowed to do so by gutless local authorities guarding not history or law but
their positions and municipal pensions. Where is the concern for facts or even
the greater concern for a destruction of national identity conducted by the
uneducable twenty-year-olds?
Enter an expert, a person not
wet behind the ears with a sledge hammer, but rather an astute historian who
possesses knowledge beyond any level which the mobsters could imagine.
Meet James "Bud"
Robertson. If you have read Civil War history, you might have read one of
his books. He has published forty [including his magisterial
prize-winning biography of Stonewall Jackson]. If you are a statue remover, you
most assuredly have read none.
Mr. Robertson is professor
emeritus Virginia Tech. He has studied the politics of the great war for
nearly six decades. He assisted the Kennedy administration in the
commemoration of the Civil War Centennial. He provides great wisdom regarding
the importance of history to a nation's identity and insights into the Civil
War. His one hour speech can be seen on his
video.
It is remarkable collection of observations, both past and present, regarding a
nation's history and the peril that comes with its altering. He corrects
the misconceptions that fuel much of this Confederate statue controversy.
His opening line is dramatic. "For
the first time in my sixty year career I must say I take no pleasure in the
talk I am about to give. Yet, it is time that the other side be heard in this
monument fury…I will address the factors that lay behind the insanity under
which we live in many sections. I understand and I respect those whose
friendships I may damage here."
Here are some salient points
from Mr. Robertson:
- Forgetting the War is impossible
- Slavery was an underlying issue but not the only factor. States rights and limitations on federal power were also very much in play.
- Probably 90% of our citizens could not pass a history exam. Cultural illiteracy is fast becoming a way of life in America.
- History is the greatest teacher you will ever have.
- Monuments compel us to look back, and learn from our history.
- Demagogic propaganda that purges fact and extols fantasy is destructive.
- Great men are being slandered by the non-educable.
Robertson points out that there
are laws on the books to prevent monument removal by local authorities.
The wisdom of these laws is to disallow the ideological fashions of the day,
implemented by fleeting politicians, to erase a history revered by the previous
generations who were witnesses and participants.
In 1906 a federal law was
passed which state Confederate soldiers would be treated the same as any other American veteran.
The statues in Virginia
memorialize those who defended their state. Section 2742 of the Virginia code,
passed in February 1904 protected all monuments from removal: "It shall
not be lawful for the authority of any county or any persons whatever to
disturb or interfere with any monuments. (Prohibiting removal, damaging or
defacing was included later.) It is still the law in 2018. In
short, monuments may not be removed due to the whims of a local agency or
"loud mouths" seeking notoriety. Authorities in Leesburg and
Alexandria sought to take down monuments but such proposals were quickly shot
down.
Robertson suggests individuals
memorialized should be considered in the "context of their time", and
that too many local politicians are to willing to bend to the politically
correct trend of the moment.
"It is sad that so many of
my Democrat friends who have respect for history are having to take the other
side merely because if the Republicans are for it, they must oppose." Politics must never supersede principle, says
James Robertson. We must not ignore the presence of a mob mentality that is long
on noise and short on knowledge.
General John Kelly was
castigated for commenting that the Civil War was caused by a "failure to
compromise". Robertson notes that "failure to compromise"
has been a staple of Civil War causes ever since the war ended. Noted
historians including Columbia's Allan Nevins and Randall of the University of
Chicago wrote extensively on just that point and thus General Kelly took the
position of experts.
According to polls, at least
70% of the electorate do not want monuments removed. There are laws on the
books to prohibit removals. Yet, laws are ignored, historical fact is
ignored. Why are bona fide references to history and its analysis, widely held
for decades such as General Kelly's comments, now castigated? Is this intentional
ignorance or anarchical globalist machinations? Or both?
Robertson maintains eliminating
the past has never been a successful means for healing.
Winston Churchill said,
"The farther backwards you can look, the farther forward you can
see." But "When the present argues with the past, you have likely
lost the future."
Robertson notes "When we
remove statues erected by previous generations we are destroying more than
bronze and marble, we are tearing down our nation itself…all the things good
and bad and inadequate that made it. Why should we want to learn from an
imperfect past. We could learn from it and move to a more perfect
future."
But there are those who wish to
"tear down" and there are those who choose not to
"learn". Their mission is to erase history, to eviscerate and
carve out the foundations of a nation's heritage. What could be more
distasteful to a globalist than that which is the foundation of a nation, that
being a nation's history?
Robertson continued:
Only when Americans learn more of their history will they become
more respectful of it. Nothing is more critical to the future of liberty than
the manner in which we educate our children. We cannot sit idly and watch these
incendiaries run loose, for protection of heritage is patriotism.
Robertson closes with a call
for more history, not less. We yearn for more reminders of how far we have come
and the obstacles we have overcome and the long journey. Eliminating memorials
will not change yesterday. Learning from them can change tomorrow.
===================================
Raleigh News &
Observer
Duke history
professors ignore school’s past as they push to remove Julian Carr’s name
BY ROB
CHRISTENSEN
September 01, 2018 12:23 PM
I doubt that I am the only person who finds it ironic, that
Duke University’s history department — the professional historians for goodness
sakes — want to rename the Carr building where their department is housed.
Julian Shakespeare Carr, the Durham industrialist and
philanthropist, is a bad odor these days, because he was a white supremacist,
and made a virulently racist speech when the Silent Sam memorial in Chapel Hill
was dedicated in 1913.
While many now know about the much-quoted racist speech,
fewer people are aware that Carr also saved Trinity College from financial
ruin, and donated 62.5 acres to the school to move it from its Randolph County
campus to Durham where it was renamed Duke University.
If Duke historians want to disassociate themselves from
Carr, should the university return the campus land to Carr’s descendants?
“We need to reckon with the dual truths. Duke probably
wouldn’t exist without Julian Carr’s generosity. And Julian Carr was a virulent
white supremacist,” Don Taylor, a public policy professor and chairman of
Duke’s Academic Council told The Washington Post.
There is a similar debate in Carrboro, where there is a
petition to change the town’s name, because it is now embarrassed by its
creator.
Carr’s name has already been removed from a building on the
Durham School of the Arts.
While the debate over historic names and monuments is full
of anger and fury, what is often missing is any context or nuance, or a sense
that things are more complex than today’s sloganeering.
Carr was a racist. Racism is bad. Let’s banish his name, or
so the reasoning seems to go.
While Carr was certainly a bigot, he was born in 1845, and
his views on race were typical of many 19th century whites in
the South, the U.S., and in Europe during the period of colonialism. (Thomas
Jefferson was a slave-holder and Abraham Lincoln was a white supremacist,
believing black people were inferior.)
Those views are now repugnant to most of us in the 21st century.
But we have no idea how our views today will hold up over
time in the 22nd or 23rdcenturies. Will meat eaters
be reviled? Will abortion or our treatment of the mentally ill be viewed as
barbaric? We don’t know.
Carr should be viewed as a man in full. Carr became one of
North Carolina’s wealthiest men, making Bull Durham tobacco famous throughout
the world, owning and partnering in textile mills, banking, railroad ventures,
and electric and telephone companies. Among other things, he was a key
financial backer of The News and Observer in the 1800s.
He is said to have given away most of his fortune helping
schools such as Davidson, Wake Forest, St. Mary’s, Elon and Greensboro
colleges. Carr financially supported the women’s suffrage movement and helped
launch the career of John Merrick, a founder of the N.C. Mutual Life Insurance
Company, which was one of the nation’s largest black-owned businesses.
He was one of the first textile mill owners to employ blacks in production jobs, not just maintenance work. He contributed land to build Durham’s public library, the first publicly supported library in the state.
He was one of the first textile mill owners to employ blacks in production jobs, not just maintenance work. He contributed land to build Durham’s public library, the first publicly supported library in the state.
Does this make Carr a prince of a guy? Most assuredly not.
But as Peter Coclanis, a UNC history professor, noted last
year: “People are more than the worst thing they have done in their lives.”
The trend now is to judge people of our great grandfather’s
era by the standards of 2018 — when, of course, neither they or their
contemporaries are alive to defend their reputations. Former Gov. Charles
Brantley Aycock, once the hero of progressive North Carolinians for his support
for public education, is in the process of being historically erased because of
his white supremacist views.
N.C. Central University in Durham is considering a push to
remove the name of Clyde Hoey, a governor from 1937 to 1941 and U.S. senator
from 1945 to 1954, from a building because he was a segregationist
By that standard, nearly every North Carolina political
figure in the pre-civil rights era is in danger of having his name scratched
off buildings.
The lack of reflectiveness is bad enough. Vandalism is
worse.
Duke University decided not to replace a statute of Robert
E. Lee in Duke Chapel after it was vandalized — thereby rewarding criminal
behavior. The same is true of a Confederate monument toppled in Durham.
Which is why the legislature is right to argue for replacing
the Silent Sam statute memorializing a Confederate soldier on the Chapel Hill
campus that was brought down by protests earlier this month. Otherwise, state
and university officials are encouraging future mob action.
The debate surrounding the Confederate monuments has many
stake holders — including African-Americans offended by the statues and those
white Southerners who want to honor the valor and sacrifice of their ancestors.
(And yes I know the monument debate does not break down neatly along racial
lines.)
It is a difficult needle to thread.
North Carolinians prefer keeping up the Confederate
monuments by a 2 to 1 margin, according a state-wide Elon University poll
conducted in October. So activists who take the law into their own hands, are
courting a political backlash.
There are ways for a community to decide the fate of these
issues, as we saw with the deliberations of the N.C. Historic Commission which
considered the future of the three Confederate memorials on the state Capitol
grounds in Raleigh.
After hearing from all the stakeholders, the commission said
it did not have the authority to move the monuments. But it did recommend that
further language be added to contextualize the monuments, and that money be
raised to build a monument recognizing the contributions of African-Americans.
This was not a decision to satisfy everyone. But such
deliberations are far preferable to mob action.
Rob Christensen can
be reached at robc@newsobserver.com or
at 919-829-4532
Comment
as of 10:45 p.m., Sept. 1, 2018
Thank you, N&O for this thoughtful and
sensible editorial that reveals the complexities of looking at history as a
morality play. The knee jerk consignment to the "memory hole" of
history of flawed human beings who still accomplished much good needs to be
carefully rethought.
Worst yet, the endorsement by academics of the destruction of memorials to the dead who were caught in the tectonic plates of wars and issues of the past opens a Pandora's Box. Do we give the green light to mob violence from any quarter when speech and advocacy are not quick enough in bring about results that are desired?
If so, any person may say the heck with dialogue and resort to violence on issues of gun rights, abortion, affirmative action, taxation, environmental protection, property rights, sexual orientation, voting rights, religion and yes, statues to all the other Americans who do not pass the litmus test of presentism.
Worst yet, the endorsement by academics of the destruction of memorials to the dead who were caught in the tectonic plates of wars and issues of the past opens a Pandora's Box. Do we give the green light to mob violence from any quarter when speech and advocacy are not quick enough in bring about results that are desired?
If so, any person may say the heck with dialogue and resort to violence on issues of gun rights, abortion, affirmative action, taxation, environmental protection, property rights, sexual orientation, voting rights, religion and yes, statues to all the other Americans who do not pass the litmus test of presentism.
=====================================
No comments:
New comments are not allowed.