A response to your observations regarding the MOC

Whitehall Memorial Park Dedication Service

The front of the memorial. The back will have the names of the fallen heroes and my grandfather's words below.

"I say we cannot know your suffering, but this we do know; We love and honour you, veterans, and are justly proud of the heritage you have given us. Just so long as warm blood flows in the veins of man, so long will the words 'Confederate Veteran' cause that blood to tingle with glorious pride, and, if there be one among us, born in our glorious Southland who is not so thrilled, every drop of stagnant blood proclaims him bastard to the South-a coward to all the world."

Joseph Powell Pippen, Esq.
May 10, 1911
Confederate Memorial Day

========

Confederate Greetings Gentlemen,

This e-mail is, unfortunately, far later than good social propriety would dictate. My intent was to answer your e-mail much sooner than now. However, personal and professional responsibilities as well as divisional SCV matters severely monopolized my attention during the past two months. I took the liberty to respond to you via a “Bcc” out of consideration for your privacy. The following comments are primarily in response to your previous e-mails (both pro and con) regarding the contentious opening of The Museum of the Confederacy in Appomattox, VA and the participation of the Maryland Division Color Guard in that event. I include a few compatriots as recipients as a courtesy and not necessarily in response to e-mail. Of the e-mails and phone calls I received on the topic, none were rude or ungentlemanly; this is a credit to the men in the SCV. Some were terser than others. All of the comments, though, highlighted the discordant nature of the matter as well as the passion we share for our heritage. Furthermore, I appreciated the reasoned opinions of our compatriots within the Maryland Division and around our Confederacy. As is to be expected with any controversy, the observations and behavior of a small minority of individuals was tasteless and inappropriate at best. I give such effluvium little credence.

No issue consumed more of my attention in shorter period of time than that of the MOC. However, I would appreciate the opportunity to explain our perspective then and our relationship (or severing thereof) with that institution now. While you may or may not agree with the rationale, I hope to clarify our position and concerns during the week preceding the dedication. My intent is not to re-ignite debate, but to respond, albeit tardily, to your sincere sentiments.

About six months before the event, the MOC requested the Maryland Division Color Guard to serve as the Confederate Color Guard for the occasion. Without condition or reservation, we made a commitment to be there. For the compatriots in our division, this was an opportunity to honor our ancestors by dedicating a facility that contains their earthly belongings. The event was added to the color guard schedule; promulgated to all usual recipients both within and beyond Maryland; and promoted without further comment or controversy. About three weeks prior to the March 31st opening, two Maryland Division camps hosted MOC CEO Waite Rawls as their speaker. Despite some subsequent rumor and on-going concerns regarding the propriety of splitting the collection across four museums, I and other division members were unaware of prior duplicity exhibited by the museum’s management. When Mr. Rawls announced that a Maryland state flag was incorporated in the exterior flag display, the response within the division was animated to say the least. Rarely, if ever, is our state recognized by the inclusion of a Maryland flag alongside those of the 13 Confederate states.

Amid our jubilation, however, nobody thought to ask the obvious, “What Confederate flag(s) will fly outside the museum?” There was a general assumption that a Confederate flag would be a component of any display. Ultimately for me, this was also a “lesson learned” – ask, even though it may seem obvious. Later, we received as yet unsubstantiated reports that no Confederate flag would be flown. To our disgust and frustration, we eventually confirmed this fact. A few of our members, who previously made substantial donations to the museum, personally discussed the matter with Mr. Rawls and other board members in an effort to change the policy. I discussed the matter with the division’s color sergeant, heritage defense officer, two judge advocates, chaplain, and a past national chaplain-in-chief. I also received input from compatriots around the Maryland Division. Furthermore, I had an extensive and enlightening conversation that week with ANV Commander Earnest who provided me with a substantive history regarding the relationship between the SCV and the MOC. I wish I had known of the depth of animosity between these two entities sooner.

The consensus among the officers with whom I spoke and my own opinion are summed up simply: our word. We gave our word to be there and that was our bond. We agreed that we should fulfill our commitment. Contrary to what anyone may believe, we considered it a commitment not to Mr. Rawls, not to the MOC Board of Directors, nor to any corporeal entity. It was not a decision that we made frivolously or without spirited discussion. Despite the odious nature of the board’s decision, we agreed that it was our obligation to attend for the purposes of representing the memory our Confederate ancestors; ensuring that Confederate flags were present and displayed in a dignified manner at the dedication of a building containing the personal belongings, uniforms, and flags of our ancestors; honoring our Maryland flag with its Confederate Botony Cross and lineage; and using this opportunity where possible to highlight the egregious reprehensibility of the museum’s decision. Some of our division compatriots with personal contacts in the museum (now “former” members of the MOC) again tried to effect a change in this foolish decision. Prior to the opening ceremony, several of our members went as far as to offer to finance an exterior Confederate flag display.

Feedback I received from compatriots in the Maryland Division ran about 80% in favor of attending. Feedback I received from outside the Maryland Division ran about 90% against attending. One compatriot in another division called me simply to ask our reason for attending. About two days before departing for Virginia on a most private matter and four days before the museum’s opening, I received Commander Givens’ “strongly urge” request not to attend. As a division commander, I appreciated the latitude his directive offered and fully understood the consequences of attendance. Obviously this was a lose-lose situation. If we attend, we certainly would be criticized for "supporting" the MOC. If we did not attend, we would abrogate our commitment. I considered the former choice to be the more palatable of two unpleasant options. Given the discretion his directive allowed, the feedback I noted previously, and my own view of the matter, I made the final decision to allow our color guard to attend.

In addition to the reasons noted above, one other consideration did have some bearing on the matter. This controversy came as an unwelcome and unexpected surprise after many of our division compatriots made lodging reservations, arranged for child care, and scheduled work leave in advance. Most of these compatriots also planned to make this an extended weekend family event and departed early in the week to tour Virginia with the MOC as the primary objective. Our color guard, like many of our SCV color guards I am sure, tries to make our events family affairs.

Subsequent to this travesty, several Maryland division members highlighted a few examples of behavior which demonstrate that not every so-called “Southron” in attendance exercised the gentlemanliness with which you expressed your concerns to me. Some of the sophomoric behavior was captured on video prior to and during the opening ceremonies. There was also an abundance of execrable posts on Face Book demonstrating a level of immaturity I never expected to see among alleged SCV compatriots or pro-Confederate supporters. The word “scalawag” was affixed to our division color sergeant’s picture and posted on one entry. Some SCV members demanded that members of the color guard and division officers be expelled from the SCV. Few men devote more time, talent, and treasure to our heritage than our color sergeant, the members of the Maryland Division Color Guard, and our division officers. In a particularly prepubescent display by alleged “adults” at the dedication, there was name-calling as color guard members arrived – something, no doubt, quite audible to the general public. When I consider that our Maryland Division Color Guard participates in nearly 30 events throughout the year to represent our SCV, our ancestors, and our heritage honorably in every climate – meteorological and political, it truly disgusted me to witness the level of vitriol toward Maryland Division compatriots. I originally intended to provide a more exhaustive list here; but, no longer consider it worthy of attention.

There is one notable subset of individuals, however, who deserve recognition for the deficit in the courage of their convictions. After the museum doors opened, some of the first people to enter as soon as the crowds dissipated were none other than the most vociferous protestors. A few even had the temerity to post on-line pictures as they stood next to a Confederate flag under which their ancestor fought. The only word for that is hypocrisy. The Maryland Division honored its commitment; these hypocrites were grand-standing outside and slithering inside. Such behavior speaks for itself.

With this MOC controversy hopefully behind us, how will the Maryland Division respond to future requests? There is no question in my mind or that of any Maryland Division compatriot that the MOC should have a Confederate flag prominently displayed outside the museum. With the information we have now and being acutely aware of the history of intractable anti-Confederate positions of the MOC regarding public displays of the Confederate flag, I will neither personally nor officially as division commander support The Museum of the Confederacy – financially or otherwise - until such time as a Confederate flag is a permanent and unmistakably visible fixture in any exterior display of flags. Furthermore, while I cannot dictate the decisions of individual compatriots to support or not to support the MOC, I will oppose any further support or promotion by the Maryland Division of the museum given its record of historical revisionism, political correctness, and public contempt for Confederate symbols.

One final point – and this precedes Commander Givens’ and Commander Earnest’s tenure – I believe that the SCV failed to put a “dog in the museum fight”. I do not know how many SCV compatriots were members of the MOC. I was until this year. My camp always encouraged MOC membership – until the flag controversy. However, our collective SCV membership in the MOC has obviously never been sufficient to influence the direction of the museum or to alter the irrational decisions by its management. Over the years if the SCV from top down encouraged compatriots to join, we might have enjoyed greater influence over MOC activities. It is not unlike a gun club to which I previously belonged; they required each member to have an NRA membership. Such a requirement would be debate in and of itself and I do not suggest it. In the following examples, though, if the given number of compatriots (assuming ~30,000 SCV members) had donated the noted amounts each year, SCV influence would not be insignificant:

· 1000 compatriots (~3.3% of SCV membership) x $1000 = $1,000,000

· 5000 compatriots (~17% of SCV membership) x $500 = $2,500,000

· 10,000 compatriots (~33% of SCV membership) x $100 = $1,000,000

Despite vagaries of the economy, these donation amounts are not unreasonable. But, if the SCV could have pointed to 1000, 5000, or 10,000 MOC dues paying compatriots, museum representatives would probably have listened a bit more attentively. It is a moot point, of course. Fortunately, we now have “The Confederate Museum” at Elm Springs as a welcome alternative.

I thank you for your input and respect the sincerity of your convictions. I sincerely believe that we all try to do what is best to honor the service, lives, and memories of our Southern forebears. Even though you still may not agree with our/my decision, I hope it will at least explain the rationale for the participation of our Maryland Division color guard and how we as a division expect to address any similar situation in the future. Thank you.

American by birth ... Southern by the Grace of God,

Jay Barringer
Commander - SCV Maryland Division
Adjutant - SCV Trimble Camp #1836
2131 Agrippas Court
Eldersburg, MD 21784
410-549-0160
rebpiper@hotmail.com
Deo Vindice

A response to your observations regarding the MOC