Acknowledging the Past is Complicated: A Response to Joel W. Sturgeon
Discover more from The Progressive American
Acknowledging the Past is Complicated: A Response to Joel W. Sturgeon
A year-old challenge is finally answered.
Addressing previous interpretations of history is a complicated and difficult affair, one that requires nuances, primary sources, and an understanding of one’s own goals in writing on a given subject. Much of my writing career has been dedicated to that endeavor, especially regarding historical memory and the misrepresentation of historical context and facts. About five months ago, however, I was pleasantly surprised by a polite but direct comment by a fellow student of history, Joel Walker Sturgeon.
Explaining a Challenge
In 2021, I was writing for the University of Illinois Springfield’s college newspaper, the UIS Observer. That paper, for which I wrote for a year, was the joy of my heart as it not only allowed me to write my thoughts while studying political science but also syndicated my podcast. It also had the pleasant benefit of allowing me to use some of my training in historical methods from my time as a student at Loras College.
It was on that paper’s website that I had the pleasure of publishing Not All History is Made Equal (2021), which detailed the extensive history of the United Daughters of the Confederacy and its supporters in promoting the now-infamous Lost Cause mythology. It remained on the website for a year and is still there for anyone to see its original form.
In October of 2022, I decided to re-publish the article to Injustice Magazine, as I felt, and still do feel, that remembering the Lost Cause as a danger to historical memory remains a critical component of history. It was here when I received a comment from Mr. Sturgeon.
I hope you take this with the kind spirit with which it is intended, but I challenge you to dig a bit deeper into this subject. It is not as straightforward as it may appear. While your points are well-substantiated by a wealth of historical evidence, I believe your evaluation leaves a bit to be desired and, perhaps, a few additional nuances might broaden your perspective on this complex subject. Additionally, I have a few questions related to your motivations behind this article (not to suggest they are not well-meaning). But who is your target audience? Those who already hold your opinions, or those whom you seek to persuade with new information? Who are you arguing against? As you mentioned, Confederate Monuments grow thinner by the day, is your post intended to combat Neo-Confederate backlash? If so, who are the significant intellectual or political voices behind said backlash? Finally, have you ever genuinely aspired to listen to those who revere these statues? Are these statues (and other such cultural adornments) fully understood by the history behind them, or should we try to understand what they mean to those who embrace them?
Having grown up in the South, I've read evaluations such as yours for most of my life. My objection isn't so much that you're factually incorrect (though I believe your overall evaluation could benefit from additional considerations). Still, I question how your piece is intended to push the envelope. How does this particular take serve to move us forward or combat prejudice? The statues are all but gone and anything resembling the once-vibrant reach or Lost Cause Mythology is reduced to a whisper in a few marginalized corners of academia like the Abbeville Institute.
I simply wonder what possible pedagogical or constructive purpose this argument serves in 2022. This interpretation is already triumphant. The statues are all but down. If there was ever an opportunity to challenge your historical evaluation, the time is long past. Essentially, this reads more like a victory lap than a constructive take.
What purpose can it now serve but to congratulate those for further victories against a force that, for all intents and purposes, gave up the fight ten years ago?
I invite you to take a look at my piece encapsulating the current societal meaning of Confederate monuments, among other things. May give you a few additional angles to consider.
Either way, thanks for the well-substantiated read. Though I've read many similar takes, they rarely employ your refreshing mastery and fluid implementation of primary sources.
Best, Joel Walker Sturgeon (2022)
Responding to the Comment
Firstly, I would like to thank Mr. Sturgeon, as I did before, for his candor and polite response. I have yet to receive such a polite and honest response from any other critic I have faced in my writing career. Very few have handled their positions with the grace and respect that Mr. Sturgeon demonstrated those months ago. It is one of the reasons I so thoroughly regret not getting to this reply sooner.
That said, I do think I should address some of the questions Mr.Sturgeon presented in this comment. Starting off, Mr. Sturgeon asks what my target audience is. Do I seek to reach out to those who already agree with me? Am I seeking to reach out to those who have yet to be persuaded by concerns over the Lost Cause? Or am I attempting to respond to a pro-Lost Cause backlash?
To address the question of a target audience, I want to emphasize that I appeal to whoever is willing and able to consider new information or a detailed analysis of historical memory.
The Lost Cause, though weaker than it once was, is still significant in the fact that it demonstrates how suppressing literature and information can reframe entire historical themes and legacies. The UDC was especially strong on this front, writing guidelines that required textbooks that didn’t fit Lost Cause narratives to be labeled with the phrase “unjust to the South.” As I noted in my aforementioned essay, the mythology was directly related to the violent white supremacy that propagandists wanted to promote in their work.
Laura Martin Rose, book infamously titled The Klu Klux Klan or Invisible Empire, which promoted the idea that the Klan was “glorious” and heroic to the South. From the very beginning, these organizations intended to spread, not remove, racism from the South.- Conor Kelly, Not All History is Made Equal, 2021.
Remembering that historical fact is critical not solely as a matter of remembering the role white supremacy plays in our society but also as a means to remember that historical accuracy is not guaranteed. It is something we must fight for, always.
It is in that spirit I wrote that article, and it is in that spirit I respond today. My audience is the American public, the public that must deal with its past, both in the South and North. Remembering how historical facts were censored in the name of white supremacy serves as a warning from our nation’s darker spirits. We must face them.
As to the issue of pushing the envelope, I have been doing that for several years now and did so as far back as 2020, when the founder of my Alma Mater, Bishop Mathias Loras, was outed as having owned an enslaved woman Marie Louise. Loras, my Alma Mater’s namesake, rented Marie out to others in Alabama to work for them, avoiding the northern prohibition on slavery.
When the news came out, I wrote an article titled Bishop Loras: A Public Historian’s View (Kelly 2020, pp. 5), where I went into detail about the critical nature of statutes.
In this article, I further explained how a community must learn to interact with the artifacts in a manner that does not glorify their past while learning from them. Bishop Loras’ statue, therefore, needed to be removed as it was in a prominent place where his presence was glorified.
My article in the Observer, therefore, was not merely a criticism of the Lost Cause but a part of my larger interaction with historical monuments and the glorification that is present in them. Pushing people to consider how statues and other monument impact their ability to interact with historical legacies is pushing the envelope forward. Far from treating monuments as stagnant, it is critical that people consider the context in which a given monument exists rather than simply looking at the monument itself.
As to the issue of a neo-Confederate backlash, I would say that I was not responding to any particular person who promotes a Confederate backlash but attempting to provide insight into how backlashes to change can create new injustices. Much like the Lost Cause could be considered a response to Reconstruction, so too should we be wary of those who claim that we are ‘destroying history.’
Regarding individuals who revere these figures, I would have to know which group is being examined here. Are we referring to individuals who see it as a part of their relationship with the South at large, or are we talking about the individuals who utilize the memory of the Confederacy to support their agenda of a white ethnostate? If it is the latter, then I would say such reverence for these long-dead men are indicative of the prejudice of the people worshipping these figures and merits immediate and continuous condemnation.
One does not have to go too far back in memory to look at how the legacy of the Confederacy was used to promote and support violence and murder in Charlottesville. Additionally, whether or not someone reveres the monument for decent reasons does not change the larger historical context of the monument’s construction.
If my article seems out of date to some, I would firmly reject that characterization simply because the Lost Cause still remains. It may be dying, but it is still a theory that retains power in the minds of some, and it is far too dangerous to ignore it. Even if the majority of the public is rejecting the Lost Cause now, that does not mean they will do so forever or that the course can’t be reversed.
It is, therefore, necessary to continuously oppose and work to prevent any such reversal, and that was my intention in that article. I thank Mr. Sturgeon for his polite comment, and I look forward to his reply.