February 14, 2014
13th Virginia Mechanized
Cavalry
Sons of Confederate Veterans,
Camp #9
P.O. Box 5037
Driver, Virginia
23435
To the Editor:
I read with
saddened heart of the fusion of the politically-correct Tredegar establishment
and the soon-to-be-former Museum of the Confederacy. As was inevitable given
it’s “leadership” over the years, the Museum has finally embraced that full
anti-Southern mindset that cheers the victory of Lincoln’s Leviathan State over
the last Republic in North America. But, parenthetically, what can one expect
when Virginia’s various Sesquicentennial groups chose such slogans as “On to
Richmond”—the cry of Union
armies—and an “educational mobile unit” nick-named the Custermobile for the
large image of Union General George Armstrong Custer which appears on its side!
And this is the vehicle
touring Virginia—Mother of States and Mother of Presidents—teaching the history (according to Lincoln sycophants and politically correct
“historians”) of the War Against Southern Independence. Alas! The only story
being told by Virginia’s heritage establishment seems to be that predicated
upon the need to make a war against tyranny into a war for slavery!
But the effort to
remove the word “Confederate” from the Museum’s name is not new.
As a member
several years ago, I received an e-mail from Mr. Rawls asking my opinion about
doing just that. Being naïve—and believing that Rawls was being pressured to be
politically correct—I advised him to hold fast to the name of the last Republic
on American soil and not to support the crusade of cultural genocide against
the South.
Silly me! It appears that in fact he wished to reject the name and was seeking support from
members of a similar persuasion.
I have advised
those involved in the preservation of Southern heritage to challenge at law any
who wish to make of the Museum one more politically-correct vehicle for the
current false “historical narrative.” The mission statement of the its founders
and all those who have supported it throughout the years by donations of
personal treasures and money has not just been ignored by the current regime,
but openly rejected. Not only does the Museum no longer recognize and promote
the noble cause of the South and the sacrifice of those who fought and fell in her
defense, but it has become another establishment vehicle to condemn and vilify
those heroes and their cause—a cause which hero Col. John Singleton Mosby
called “the noblest…ever defended by the sword…”
The original spirit of the Museum is to be found in the first appeals
for donations in 1892:
“The glory, the
hardships, the heroism of the war were a noble heritage for our children.
To keep green such memories and
to commemorate such virtues, it is our purpose
to gather together and preserve in the Executive Mansion of the Confederacy the
sacred relics of those glorious days.”
The final
declaration is found in the first paragraph of the Introduction Page, Catalogue
of the Confederate Museum of the
Confederate Memorial Literary Society, 1905, to wit:
“The need of an organization to preserve a true
and faithful record of the gallant struggle made by the soldiers of the South
for independence being keenly felt, the Confederate
Memorial Literary Society was chartered and organized under the laws of
Virginia, its object being to teach all future generations
the true history of the war and the principles for which these soldiers laid
down their lives."
Is there anyone who
sincerely believes that the current administration of the Museum is acting in
accordance with these founding declarations? Rather are they
not acting in a manner diametric
to those noble goals? This was never to be a collection of uniforms and flags! It was always intended to memorialize the struggle of the South against
federal tyranny in the War of Secession.
Surely, such an
intentional rejection of the fundamental meaning of the institution placed in
one’s trust must preclude one remaining in a position of trust. It also requires that several
pertinent questions be asked—and answered! When was the avowed purpose of the Museum of the Confederacy
recast so as to make it into another component of anti-Southern propaganda? And
as this new “mission” is now in effect, when was this matter made public and by
what vote was the original mission removed
and replaced by this current enterprise? And, again, what right did Mr. Rawls
and his minions have to institute this new understanding of an institution
founded before the beginning of the last century on a very different program? Yet,
as it is obvious that a new “program,” diametric to the original vision for the
Museum, is now in effect, is that not contrary to the legal, not to mention moral obligations of the authorities who have brought it about?
If those in charge of the Museum of the Confederacy and not of the American Civil War—a title which is mendacious in itself—could not and/or would
not abide by their duties to that
institution, were they not then honour-bound to remove
themselves from those positions? I would say that
anyone with any understanding of the meaning of those words would have said,
“yes!” If they could not support an institution venerating Southern heritage as
intended, they should have removed themselves from their
positions. That they did not do so but chose
to use those positions to
force their will upon those who looked to them to honourably serve their charge
only shows that the agenda of Lincoln and his armies did not end with
Appomattox.
To my mind, I would
rather that these noble relics be returned to those who gave them in good faith
and placed in smaller right-thinking repositories around the South for proper
recognition, understanding and reverence than for them serve as trophies for
those whose victory was a matter of might over right and who continue to work
ceaselessly to remove all remaining vestige of Southern heritage and history
from the minds of men.
Very
truly yours, etc.
Lady Val Protopapas
New York
