Virginia is for lovers...of confederate history!

It seems logical enough that the state of Virginia, home of numerous Civil War battlefields and historic sites, would want its residents to know about the state's wartime past. It's good for general knowledge and for tourism. Perhaps, then, the state would even have a month devoted to the history of the war--Civil War History Month, perhaps, just like Women's History or African American History Months.

But this is the state where in recent months state universities were told to end their anti-discrimination policies towards gays and the state legislature passed a bill to allow residents to carry guns into restaurants. So, in true Virginian style, the governor signed a proclamation today making April "Confederate History Month."

You could argue that since Virginia was the seat of the Confederacy, this makes some sense. But beyond the far-from-PC name choice, there is the proclamation itself. While the last governor to make the proclamation in 2002, Jim Gilmore, had added language condemning slavery to George Allen*'s original 1997 declaration, the current governor Bob McDonnell's proclamation never mentions slavery. The proclamation also describes the conflict as "a four year war between the states for independence."

The language choices are hardly surprising, given that the group which urged McDonnell to sign the proclamation is the Sons of Confederate Veterans. The opening lines on the group's website claims that: "The preservation of liberty and freedom was the motivating factor in the South's decision to fight the Second American Revolution" [italics in original]. The "charge" to the group is to fight for "the vindication of the cause for which we fought" and to defend the Confederates' virtues, principles, and ideals. I don't think it's overreaching to suggest that all this is code for protecting white supremacy and pushing back against the federal government.

The truth is that this proclamation isn't really about the past, anyway; it's about making a political appeal to a conservative base that remains uncomfortably similar to Virginians 150 years ago. While it's still legal to discriminate against gays and people who would prefer not to get shot, even Virginia politicians realize they can't directly go after African Americans. The confederate past has been revived not to learn from the past but as a present-day tool for the state's bigots.

*Yes, this is the Allen of "macaca" fame.


UPDATE: Check out the Washington Post's strongly-worded editorial on this subject

ANOTHER, more positive, UPDATE: McDonnell apologizes and adds anti-slavery language

Texas is SO 1990's

Actually, it's not a joking matter. Texas's Board of Education has hearkened back to the culture wars of the early 1990s, particularly the fight over national history standards, with their new changes to the state curriculum. But there is something notably more partisan about the Texas story than the fight in the '90s. When the standards written in 1994 were attacked by Lynne Cheney, then head of the National Endowment for Humanities, the debate was more about conservatives' wanting to see more about white leaders and national triumphs, and less about minorities and conflict. The Texas Board of Ed would agree with that, but they've gone farther: they want to emphasize Republican tenets and accomplishments. The changes include:

• removing Jefferson from the discussion of people who influenced the Age of Revolutions because he supported separation of church and state
• Christianizing the founders and the basis of American government
  
• emphasizing the success of the "free-enterprise" rather than "capitalist" system
• praising Nixon and Reagan's "leadership"
• adding discussion of Phyllis Schlafly, the NRA, the Contract with America, and the Heritage Foundation

Newspaper coverage of these changes has emphasized the importance of Texas's standards because the state is a large market for textbooks. But what I can't fathom is what reputable historian--because, let's remember, textbooks are written by historians and not politicians--would agree to tailor a text to such overtly partisan ends. Yes, there is money involved, and that is probably going to overrule some underpaid historian's ethical objections. It's too touchy to have professional codes violating this sort of politically-motivated historical work, because the line is a tough one to draw.

That said, historians are experts in history, and the dentist who heads Texas's Board of Ed is certainly not. The fact that conservatives have been able to marginalize the expertise of historians by arguing that all academics are liberally-biased is perhaps the Right's biggest triumph in the culture wars. To argue for complexity and nuance is now considered liberal. Perhaps that's now actually true: the chairman of the GOP doesn't even know the meaning of the word "nuance."

I think that Texas Board of Ed member Mavis Knight, an African-American Democrat from Dallas, captured the problems of the Right's approach in the culture wars best:

We are painting this false picture of America. We are not unified, even now. We're struggling to be, but you would have us think that we're in some kind of utopia that does not exist, and so until we mature more, we're going to look at where we have been and what obstacles we have overcome so that we won't continue to repeat some of the bad habits that we had in the past.

If only this smoothing over of struggles was the only problem with Texas's new standards.

Liveblogging the State of the Union

Some blogs had "liveblogging" updates during the State of the Union. I find these speeches painfully boring, in part because they are constantly broken up by partisan applause. So I wondered what unique take I could offer on the SOTU...and what else besides tracking the (often cheesy) history references. So, here goes.

9:05: PBS Commentator Mark Shields suggests that having the new governor of Virginia give the response to the SOTU from the VA State House is like a "State of the Confederacy." Jim Lehrer is not sure how to handle this.
9:11: Obama opens with history of SOTU; "it's tempting to look back on these moments and assume our progress was inevitable." I am very disappointed to hear that America's greatness was not preordained.
9:12: references Bull Run, Civil Rights Marches, the landing at Normandy
9:13: "we must answer history's call" (Somehow it seems like nobody can agree how to pick up the phone to answer that call).
9:18: has a president ever laughed during the SOTU?
9:21: wow another joke? this may be historic.
9:27: "From the first railroads, to the interstate highway system, our nation has always been built to compete." The Smithsonian has that story covered.
9:34: "We made the largest research investment in history." John Quincy Adams would be proud; people thought he was nuts when he proposed that the govt support research in the 1820s.
9:49: points out that in 2000, we had a massive budget surplus. That does seem like ancient history.
9:51: announces no new spending for the next 3 years. Oh well, so much for Keynesian economics or learning from the Depression.
9:58: "the Supreme Court reversed a century of law" with the campaign finance decision. The camera pans to the justices and they stare foreword blankly.
10:00: the debates between parties are 200 years old and are "the essence of our democracy." Hoftstadter would love that.
10:03: "through-out our history, no issue has united our country so much as national security." Hmm, not sure about that. See Alien and Sedition Act backlash and then almost every national security move since.
10:09: on nuclear power--"I've embraced the strategy of John F. Kennedy and Ronald Reagan." I'm confused. I think he just wanted to make sure to get their names in somewhere.
10:14: "It's our ideals, our values, that built America, values that allowed us to forge a nation made up of immigrants from every quarter of the globe. Values that drive us still." These values: the American dream of immigrants...and the nativism of Americans.
10:18: "The only reason we are here is that generations of Americans were unafraid to do what was hard."
10:20: "The spirit that has sustained this nation for 200 years lives on in you." Nice line.
10:28: Mark Shields says Obama was Reaganesque; "He invoked the country's past to give a sense of confidence about where we are now. And nobody did that better than Ronald Reagan."

Image: George Washington's State of the Union address--the first ever--on January 21, 1790

South Carolina's Scandalous History

While I'm in South Carolina on vacation, I've been thinking about the long history of major political scandals in this state--with 2 of the biggest coming in the past year. It's hard to imagine, as I look out the window at pines and oaks draped in Spanish moss and hear the slow, friendly drawl of the people here that this is the place that produced Joe Wilson. Wilson, who in fact represents the area where my family vacations, was the congressman who yelled "You lie!" during Obama's speech on health reform this past fall. It wasn't the accusation so much as where it was said and how. There is a decorum to criticizing the president, and a decorum to behavior in the chambers of congress.

Another South Carolina congressmen crossed similar lines in a scandal in 1856. Preston Brooks had a gripe with another member of congress, Charles Sumner. Protocol then dictated Brooks should challenge Sumner to a duel, but that would require acknowledging that Sumner was a gentleman--only gentlemen duelled each other. So, Brooks took what was to him the logical alternative--whacking Sumner with his cane in the Senate chamber. Sumner suffered such severe injuries he was unable to return to work for 3 years.

Both congressmen met with support from their constituents, cheers from the supposedly genteel voters for the indecorous acts of their representatives. Brooks received gifts of new canes, one reading "Hit him again." The phones at Wilson's office rang off the hook with calls of support. In both cases, opposition in the North erupted in response. I'm not the first to note the parallels--this NY Times column describes the Brooks/Sumner story in more detail.

I can't think of much in the way of historical parallels for the second big South Carolina scandal, Governor Sanford's "hiking the Appalachian trail" incident. But consider these other SC sex scandals:
-Strom Thurmond's secret, illegitimate black daughter revealing her identity in 2003
-the wife of an indicted SC congressman posed in Playboy and bragged about having sex with him on the US Capitol steps in 1981.

And some other SC political hits:
-the lieutenant governor shot and killed a newspaper editor in Columbia, SC in the early 1900s
-a coalition of state congressmen calling themselves "The Fat and Ugly Caucus" attempted a power grab and many were later indicted in a vote-selling probe
-a speech on the Senate floor--reminiscent of Joe Wilson--by a SC Senator which the New York Times called "coarse abuse of the president" under the headline "Senate Disgraced" in 1896

Oh, and let's not forget that South Carolina was the first to secede from the Union. One historian argues that "South Carolinians don't really want to be part of the United States, and they don't have any use for the political rules and processes the rest of us pretty much agree to." It's true that South Carolina was historically, and continues to be, one of the least democratic states in the country. It has been shaped by social hierarchy and deference since its beginnings, and it appears that South Carolinians are content to let their elected officials do as they please--and sometimes even cheer them on.

"The Most Unconquerable Place on Earth"

I was talking with a friend today about Obama's decision to send 30,000 more troops to Afghanistan. Somehow I just cannot work up the energy to be angry, because it seems more laughable than anything. Really, if Genghis Khan couldn't conquer this place, what makes us think that we can? Maybe tanks, drones and machine guns aren't such game-changers after all. And perhaps Obama should have had an historian or two--or John Oliver--join his team to decide a course of action in Afghanistan.

The Daily Show With Jon Stewart	Mon - Thurs 11p / 10c
The Unwinnable War in Afghanistan
www.thedailyshow.com
Daily Show Full Episodes Political Humor Health Care Crisis

Ignorance and the American Voter

There are two things I think every voter in America should be at least vaguely knowledgeable about: recent political history and candidate's current policy positions. In both this campaign and the last one I worked on, I wanted to be able to engage with voters who were undecided and make the case for the candidate I was supporting. But as I wrote recently, American politics and the media coverage of it seem to operate on truthiness rather than truth, on instincts rather than facts. It's hard to engage with voters and have a meaningful debate when they are utterly uninformed.

The author of a recent book entitled Just How Stupid Are We? Facing the Truth About the American Voter argues that once television news became more popular than newspapers, "shallowness was inescapable as Americans began judging politicians by how they looked and acted." Voters today are more ignorant than ever on even the basics of our political system. If only 2 in 10 Americans knows how many senators we have, can we really expect them to know the candidates positions on the issues?

Being informed is not just about reading up on policy during the elections, though. A deeper understanding of recent political history is often necessary to really understand candidates' positions. A perfect example is John McCain and the Keating 5, particularly given what's happening with our economy right now.

This amusing video from Blogger Interrupted illustrates my point about lack of both historical and policy knowledge perfectly. Enjoy!

The rule of history

Decisions like Thursday's Supreme Court ruling on DC's gun law reminded me why I'm glad I went into history and not law. The decision is largely based on history and parsing the language of the Second Amendment to understand the original meaning. What did "bear arms" mean in the 18th century? An amicus (friend of the Court) brief from linguists was submitted with one suggestion. The justices looked at state constitutions, Quaker beliefs, debates in the House of Lords, Thomas Jefferson's writings, and 19th century court cases. Justice Scalia accuses Justice Stevens of "flatly misreading the historical record." It all sounds a lot like an historical monograph.

So why be glad to be an historian rather than a judge? Because when I wind together historical contexts and do a close analysis of quotes, the end to my argument is an intellectual one. History is messy, and there are always multiple ways of combining the evidence to come to a particular conclusion. There is no one right answer, no claim that I hand down as absolute Truth. But when judges make historical arguments, they are recreating the law of the land from one of many possible histories.

Back to the gun control case: this is a legal question, not an historical one. As Justice Breyer notes in his dissent, examining DC's law with traditional legal instruments (such as "rational basis" or "strict scrutiny") might lead the Court to different answers. Certainly it's fascinating to look at the historical context and what the founders intended, but the founders also intended to bar non-whites and women from voting and to perpetuate slavery. The 21st century is a very different place from the 18th, which is why we go by the rule of law rather than the rule of history.

More reading...

• A good survey of historical research on the 2nd amendment
• A liberal columnist's view in support of the decision
• The NY Times' condemnation of the decision
• Amicus briefs, including those by academics on both sides of the case
  

Why do history?

Pretty much since I started college, I've been concerned about doing something that mattered. Maybe it was because 9/11 happened my second week in college, or because many of my friends went into politics, advocacy work, or teaching, but whatever the reason, I've always been uneasy about being in the ivory tower. It doesn't help that the usual response from people when they hear I'm going for a PhD in history is some variation on a sarcastic "wow, that's useful..."

Last week, at the annual American Studies Association conference (held, conveniently enough, in Philadelphia), I attended a panel about the role of American Studies in informing public policy. There was clearly a lot of interest in the topic, because the room was so packed that people were standing the doorway (and believe me, this is not common at this kind of conference!). What emerged from what all of the scholars there were saying was that studying the past doesn't have to create analogies, but rather possibilities, for the present. Possibilities of other ways of doing things based on how we have done things in the past.

GW named one of its new dorms Ivory Tower, embodying the concept of the detached university (particularly apt here, since this was built over the neighborhood's objections)

To be honest, I'd never really thought about it that way. Certain topics lend themselves to this approach better than others: one scholar on immigration explained how her research shows past laws and policies that have been abandoned but could be useful today. An expert from a think tank explained that he reads articles by historians looking for answers to questions he approaches today when advising lobbyists. I asked about what a scholar who doesn't work on something that's currently a hot topic can do, and they insisted that being an activist can be an important role for somebody already trained in critical thinking and formulating arguments. True, but less compelling, I think.

Then I read, at a professor's suggestion, the incoming president of Harvard's inaugural address. The new president there, Drew Faust, is an historian. She echoed the concerns of a lot of historians I've talked to in school this year who worry about "presentism," or trying too hard to make historical research respond to present questions (although I think this is different from the possibility suggested by the panel about looking to the past for ideas--they weren't suggesting that the past try to answer current questions). Here's her answer to why we study fields like history and classics:

"We pursue them in part 'for their own sake,' because they define what has over centuries made us human, not because they can enhance our global competitiveness. We pursue them because they offer us as individuals and as societies a depth and breadth of vision we cannot find in the inevitably myopic present. We pursue them too because just as we need food and shelter to survive, just as we need jobs and seek education to better our lot, so too we as human beings search for meaning. We strive to understand who we are, where we came from, where we are going and why."

I guess her "depth and breadth of vision" is kind of like the panel's idea of alternative possibilities. I'll agree that the pursuit of knowledge is part of what makes us human, but as much as I know I'm in this for a search for meaning, that is a selfish pursuit. A lot of people in the ivory tower are appeased by the noble nature of the pursuit, but I will continue to stubbornly insist that there should be something more.

George Washington in the news

Retired Gen. George Washington Criticizes Bush's Handling Of Iraq War

WASHINGTON, D.C.—The Revolutionary War veteran noted that while Hussein was a tyrant, that alone did not justify a "conflict that seems without design or end."

Good old George Washington made a couple of headlines this week. The first, of course, is a farce, but a very clever one. I'm kind of surprised that they didn't bring out more clearly Washington's isolationist view of foreign policy. In his farewell address, he said:

"The great rule of conduct for us in regard to foreign nations is in extending our commercial relations, to have with them as little political connection as possible. So far as we have already formed engagements, let them be fulfilled with perfect good faith. Here let us stop...If we remain one people under an efficient government, the period is not far off when we may defy material injury from external annoyance..."

Washington also made the news up in my home-to-be of Philadelphia. Growing up in Washington, D.C., I always thought of Washington's home as Mount Vernon. But he also lived in Philadelphia when the capital was located there, and apparently the National Park Service is excavating his home. Archaeologists have found "an underground passageway where slaves slipped in and out of the main house, so they wouldn't be seen by Washington's guests." Apparently Adams also lived in this house, and I have to wonder what he would have thought of having slave quarters in his residence. The website for the site has a live webcam of the dig plus a lot of information on slavery at the house.