The Museum of the Confederacy and the American Civil War Center Merge

And the neoconfederates hate it.

I’m late to the party on this one.  Brooks and Kevin have already commented on it, but in case you haven’t seen it yet, The Museum of the Confederacy, which houses an incredible collection of artifacts but is in a terrible location being encroached on and having very little parking and being very difficult to get to, is merging with the American Civil War Center at Tredegar, which has a fantastic location with lots of room and not as many artifacts as it needs.  This is a win/win for both organizations and for students of the Civil War.

Predictably, neoconfederates are up in arms about this.  You can see an example here and here, one here with plagiarism off the previous link, and another silly, semiliterate one here.

Why would they be against this move?  Simple.  They have what it takes to be neoconfederates.


  1. You claim the neoconfederate hate it. Have you ever thought they may hate being lied to as this shows they were? Or the fact that you are so ready to attack and use extreme ungentlemanly conduct? I have always heard :”Any excuse it a good excuse if one must have an excuse”. It is sad you make up lies and act so hostile and barbaricly rude.

    1. Have you ever thought that perhaps after all the talk about mergers they decided it would be a good idea? What’s the problem with the two facilities merging? The MOC artifacts have more room to be displayed, and patrons can actually get to the facility and park. I’ve been to the MOC a few times, and each time it was a nightmare to find a place to park and to get to the museum. Tredegar is easy to get to, and there are plenty of places to park. Also, the grounds have a lot of open space for new buildings to display many more artifacts. I haven’t made up anything, and if I act in a hostile manner it’s because that’s what’s required.

      1. IF they decided afterwards to do so the supporters and public have a right to know. The problem with it is that widows, daughters and granddaughters of fallen soldiers gave their loved one’s possessions to the museum so they could be displayed in their honor. Not so their loved one’s items could be played next to a person that was on the side that caused their death. I shudder to think of the chance of it being laid next to their murderer. The politically correct approach to this is for the birds. It is history. To disagree with you further it is very commonly referred to as the War between the States. However, the official name is not “War of the Rebellion”. It is the Civil War. Plain and simple. I sure hope you don’t work for the museum if you don’t even know that.

        1. You people really are entertaining. Please don’t ever stop. What the merger does is create more space for artifacts to be displayed. To call a soldier in wartime a murderer simply shows your own ignorance. You obviously have no credibility as a result, but your post is useful for highlighting what it takes for one to be a neoconfederate. The official name is the War of the Rebellion. The United States published the official records of the war and used that terminology. They described the war as a civil war, but the official name for it was the War of the Rebellion. Calling it the Civil War today in common usage is just a compromise.

          1. All we hear from the pro-museum people is ” What the merger does is create more space for artifacts to be displayed.”. That line is old. Get some new material. [modern politics edited out] You are one sided and refuse to acknowledge there is another side. You are a perfect democrat. Sir, I take rather high defense to you calling me ignorant. I am not the one who had to resort to name calling as you have been doing for days. You remind me a lot of John Tucker. Are you one in the same? This museum will fail. A word to the wise, I suggest you watch just who you insult & call names. You have no idea who is on the other side of my screen. Nor do you know my connections or the amount of my past museum donations. Which have been halted entirely! Do not bite off more than you can chew.

          2. You hear that because it’s the truth. It has to be repeated to get it through some rather thick skulls out there. Just because you don’t like it doesn’t mean it’s not the truth. Use of the term “democrat” with a lower-case “d” means the person believes in rule by the people. I proudly claim that label. I also proudly claim the label “republican” with a lower-case “r.” Look it up in the dictionary. If you don’t want to be known as ignorant, it would behoove you to not make ignorant statements like calling a soldier doing his duty a murderer. Stupid claims like that will garner you even worse labels in places that are less polite than this one. I don’t know who this John Tucker is, so I can only say he is not me. Any further threats from you will be reported to the authorities, and I will press charges. Remember, your IP address is appended to your comment and in the blog’s records, and that makes it easy to locate Mark Bieber. You have been warned. I’m sure the museum will miss your $1 contribution.

    1. Typical of the superficial lack of understanding we see from the heritage instead of history crowd. Start with a strawman argument, find a few out-of-context quotes, and wrap it up for anyone who has no idea what actually happened and they think they have something, when all they’ve done is prove how little they understand of actual history.

  2. Billy Bearden · · Reply

    Waite Rawls is a happy man. Finally got rid of that nasty “Confederacy” part of the name he has been trying to ditch for years, and the new home will be over by that illegal Lincoln statue. Ms Coleman has called MoC supporters “Billy Bobs” and ‘neo-Confederates’. It’s hard to fathom such a person bashing the hundreds of thousands of supporters while seeking to maintain a viable attraction. She even disagrees with the term “War Between the States”, although that is what the US Congress called it.
    At least she says the Union didn’t fight to free slaves….

    1. You see, this is why anyone who knows anything doesn’t give you people any credibility. Wait Rawls has nothing against the term, “confederacy.” The Lincoln statue isn’t illegal. Ms. Coleman hasn’t called all MOC supporters those names. And she’s right to disagree with the term “war between the states” because it’s one of the least accurate terms ever put forward for the Civil War. The actual, official name is “War of the Rebellion.”

  3. Billy Bearden · · Reply

    Illegal, Lincoln statue at Tredegar, most certainly:
    ” The Office filed a bill of complaint and consent judgment relating to
    allegations that U.S. Historical Society solicited charitable contributions in Virginia
    without being registered with the Office of Consumer Affairs in violation of the Virginia
    Solicitation of Contributions statute (VSOC law), and that it engaged in deceptive
    practices in violation of the VSOC law and the Virginia Consumer Protection Act.
    The conduct at issue related primarily to the solicitation by the Historical Society for
    sales of, and actual sales of, certain replica statues in connection with its proposal
    to install a statue at the Tredegar Iron Works in Richmond. The consent judgment
    provided for injunctive relief, and payment of monetary amounts for restitution
    ($8,800), civil penalties ($10,000) and attorney’s fees ($4,200).” –
    Virginia Commonwealth Attorney General Jerry Kilgore, 2004

    1. Don’t quit your job to become a lawyer. I wouldn’t want to see you starve. Let’s assume that’s all true. None of it makes the statue itself illegal.

      1. Actually, accepting donations and not having an active Solicitation of Contributions status is illegal in every state.

        1. Once again, even if we accept that as true, it doesn’t make the statue itself illegal. You people are a trip.

          1. If Southern heritage folks had done something similar, we’d never hear the end of your screeching about it.

          2. If I were, I’d be talking about the funding, assuming for the sake of argument that what was claimed was true. I don’t concede that because I haven’t looked into it. But again it doesn’t make the statue itself illegal. What would make the statue illegal is if there was a law against either the statue itself or having it located where it’s located.

  4. Billy Bearden · · Reply

    City of Lexington, Virginia Council minutes, February 15th, 2007
    Quoting Councilman Mimi Elrod:
    “In talking with Mr. Rawls I became convinced, though, that at least some people closely
    connected with the Museum of the Confederacy are not simply interested in glorifying the
    confederacy but really are trying to understand the Civil War and all of its ramifications. Mr.
    Rawls intimated that the name of the museum might be changed to reflect an honest study of this
    period of history and a name that would be suitable to the area in which it is relocated. He did
    not suggest that everyone connected to the museum thought as he did.”

    1. And none of that backs up your claim. It doesn’t say anything about what he personally thinks about the word, “confederacy.” This is a councilwoman’s impression that if the museum takes on a wider function, the name could be changed to reflect that wider function.

      1. Billy Bearden · · Reply

        It’s amazing what you will simply blow off as being ‘nothing’ just to continue your disdain at people like me. That’s OK. If you sleep better at night…..

        Civil War museum to change name?

        Center may drop the word ‘Confederacy’ after move; perception problem cited



        Tuesday, February 20, 2007

        The Museum of the Confederacy will likely drop the word “Confederacy” from its name when it moves its collection to a new home.

        “One of our challenges is a gap between the public’s perception of who we are and the role we play, and the reality of who we are and the role we play,” Waite Rawls, the museum’s president and CEO, said yesterday.

        “The repositioning we have done over the past 30 years is to be more of a modern education institution and less of a memorial . . . to the Confederacy.”

        The museum dates to Feb. 22, 1896, when The Confederate Museum opened in the former home of Confederate President Jefferson Davis.

        The new name, Rawls said, would depend on the location of the museum. Lexington took a step closer to becoming that place last week when its City Council voted unanimously to enter into nonbinding talks with the Richmond institution.

        “It would be a boom to tourism and in increasing the vitality of downtown,” Lexington Mayor John Knapp Sr. said yesterday. “But we’ve really just begun the process.”

        In January, Rawls and three members of the museum’s board toured a possible site in Lexington, the historic Rockbridge County courthouse complex on Main Street. The complex also includes the old jail, which dates to 1841, the First American Bank building and the “lawyer’s row” building. All are vacant and would require renovation.

        “To me, the Confederate flag symbolizes slavery, oppression and denying people their rights,” Lexington Councilwoman Mimi Elrod said yesterday in a phone interview. “I have a problem with a museum that celebrates that being in our city. If you have a museum that looks at all aspects of the Civil War, that’s very different to me.”

        After discussing a possible name change with Rawls, Elrod said she welcomes more talks. Lexington City Council has appointed a committee to look into the best uses for its courthouse complex.

        “This may all work out very nicely,” Elrod said.

        Not everyone agrees.

        “Moving the museum would be a bad administrative move,” said Darryl Starnes, the Sons of Confederate Veterans commander of the Edmund Ruffin Camp in Mechanicsville. “Richmond was the capital of the Confederacy. That’s the place the Museum of the Confederacy should be.”

        He’s even more concerned about a name change.

        “I think it would dilute the integrity of the museum,” he said.

        A group of about 10 historians, grant writers and preservationists don’t think so. The committee studied the museum’s health last year and released its findings in October. The report states that the word “Confederacy” carries “enormous, intransigent and negative intellectual baggage with many. For them, the Confederacy, and by association the Museum of the Confederacy, now symbolize racism.”

        The museum is seeking a new home for its Civil War collection, the world’s largest, to escape the sprawling medical campus of Virginia Commonwealth University. About 140 miles west of downtown Richmond in Rockbridge County, Lexington could be a good fit for the museum’s collection of artifacts, manuscripts and photographs. Confederate Gens. Robert E. Lee and Thomas J. “Stonewall” Jackson are buried there, and the city is home to Washington and Lee University as well as Virginia Military Institute.

        In October, Rawls announced that the museum at 12th and East Clay streets would relocate its collection but that the adjacent White House of the Confederacy would stay put.

        Although museum officials may be interested in Lexington, Rawls said other sites will be considered as well. He hopes the relocation is complete by 2011, the beginning of the sesquicentennial of the American Civil War.

        1. Once again, that doesn’t say how he personally feels about the term, “confederate.” He’s saying the mission of the museum has changed. It’s no longer a memorial but rather is more of an educational institution. Combine that with the previous article and, if we’re to assume Ms. Elrod’s impressions were accurate, there’s going to be a wider focus encompassing more of the period than just the confederacy.

          Changing the name of the museum doesn’t mean that he considers the term, “confederacy” to be “nasty,” to use your word.

          As to “disdain,” I have disdain for misuse of facts. I have disdain for modern-day racists. I have disdain for people who don’t use the intellect God gave them. And because I listed those, don’t think I necessarily apply them to you. I don’t mean for this to sound condescending, but I assume you’re a good guy and that you and I would get along if we met on the street. I just can’t assign any credibility to claims like the Lincoln statue is illegal. That’s just utter nonsense. If there are people who think it’s illegal there is a recourse. They can bring a case in court, show how they are harmed by it, and see where it goes from there. And I can’t assign any credibility to the claim that Rawls considers “confederacy” or “confederate” to be a nasty term. The term “War Between the States” is one of the least accurate descriptions of the war out there. “War of the Slaveholders’ Rebellion,” which is a very contentious term, is even more accurate than that. I think it’s ridiculous to claim it is the official term for the war when so much evidence contradicts it.

        2. The following line is pretty accurate and describes some of the problems surrounding the museum.

          “The repositioning we have done over the past 30 years is to be more of a modern education institution and less of a memorial . . . to the Confederacy.”

          The only memorial the Confederacy needs is one that illustrates the wrongness about the Confederacy. I won’t go to a museum that celebrates the Confederacy via the Lost Cause interpretation of the Civil War. It is bad history and is nothing more than an attempt to glorify the errors made by a previous generation in their traitorous rebellion. Changing the name of the MOC is a very good idea. Generate a positive impression and display the artifacts in the proper historical manner and context.

          I think this merger is a big step in the right direction. Also, location is everything and the MOC is crippled by the hospital. It is difficult enough to get people to go to museums. When it becomes difficult to get to them, then they’re not going to go. Add in a few people waving flags around outside on the sidewalk for no good reason and you’ve got a reason for people to go elsewhere which is pretty sad because the MOC has an extensive collection of artifacts.

          1. The hospital is the big concern for me. Twice now I’ve had to park semi-legally in hospital parking when visiting the museum. I really see this as a win for everyone.

          2. Waving flags, calling the museum to cuss out whoever answers the phone, and fluffing each others’ resentments on the Facebook machine is about as constructive as they get.

  5. Billy Bearden · · Reply

    “War Between the States” was what the US Government stated when it included those very words on the US Congressional Gold Medal of 1956

    1. You people certainly will grasp at any straw you can, won’t you? The official name is the War of the Rebellion. That’s what the United States Government called it during and after the war. What some lost causer congressman was able to do based on his committee chairmanship doesn’t change it.

        1. Mark Bieber has shown an inability to engage in an intellectual conversation. Shame.

    2. Billy, since when have you given a rat back side about what the US Congress thinks. What ever fits your selective outrage…eh?

      1. Billy Bearden · · Reply

        Corey, man. I love you, bro, I really do. Seriously.

    1. My first troll from Arkansas. Bye, bye, Mr. Bieber.

  6. I think they are both magnificent museums. Granted, the MOC definitely has more “stuff.” I just hope that through the merger, the Confederate White House is maintained.

  7. The “War of Rebellion” name is victor propaganda.

    1. It is the actual name of the war. I’m willing to compromise and call it “Civil War,” though.

    2. Jefferson Moon · · Reply

      And “War for Southern Independence”,”War of Northern Aggression” are loser propaganda.The fact is the United States considered it a rebellion.

  8. Didn’t Waite Rawls gloat several years ago that the Museum of the Confederacy had “changed” it mission, or some such, from a MEMORIAL to the Confederacy to an educational facility about the CIVIL WAR? And I’ll bet you don’t see a thing wrong with that. I’ll bet you support it, don’t you, [edit]?

    1. I don’t know that he was gloating. I don’t see a thing wrong with it being an educational facility about the Civil War rather than a memorial to the confederacy.

  9. Semi-literate? It is SOOOO interesting what you choose to notice and what you choose to ignore. You notice inconsequential mistakes of people you oppose, but ignore the same mistakes of people on your side. Of course, you won’t read the comments at my blog, but if you did, you’d see grammar and spelling errors by your buddies Corey Meyer and Rob Baker that rival anything by a Facebook “neo-Confederate.” The difference is that Meyer and Baker are teaches in the PUBLIC SCHOOL SYSTEMS of their states.

    The hatred of you “civil war bloggers” for people who have not done anything to you is breathtaking.

    1. Well, Connie, if I don’t follow your blog, then how could I choose to ignore something? If I’m not aware of something I can’t choose to ignore it now, can I? There’s a difference, though. Someone making a comment on another person’s blog can’t edit their comment after they submit it. A person commenting on Facebook can delete the post and put a new one on when they see they’ve made a typo. Of course, they have to recognize the error first. If they don’t know it’s an error, they’re not going to change it. “Hatred” is the wrong word.

    2. Connee, Connie, Conniy,

      Misspelled wordds on a cmment thred are a simpll problem of not prooofreeding what is ritten. If all u have to nit pick on me is mi spellling then I am goood to gooo.

      BTW, I admit to my students that I am a horrible speller…that however does not mean I am not a good teacher. That is where you are mistaken Connie.

      1. I understand you’re making a point, Corey. Regarding spelling, I think it behooves us to always try our best to get the word right. Otherwise it makes us look bad, and if we’re supposed to be setting the example for the next generation it’s doubly bad, in my opinion. This is not meant as a criticism but rather me stating what I believe.

        What credibility does a person have when they hold up a sign that says, “your in america speak english”? The person can’t capitalize or use punctuation and doesn’t know the difference between “your” and “you’re” and wants to lecture others on English? Don’t get me started on the misuse of apostrophes to indicate plurals instead of possessives, or the inability to use the right word when choosing between “there,” “their,” and “they’re.”

        We have free education in the United States today, and in my opinion that makes it inexcusable for us to not know our own language. I cringe when I hear the [former] President of the United States say to the entire nation, “Is our children learning?” I think it’s not inconsequential. It can indicate a number of things including poor education, poor intelligence, or simply not caring. Of those, I think not caring is the worst.

        A few mistakes here and there are forgiveable. But not knowing, or not caring to know, how to use the language correctly in my mind is worthy of censure. Educated people ought to speak and write in an educated manner.

        1. Oh I fully understand Al, however there is a difference between a comment on Connies site and something that I handout to my students or something I turn in for college credit or post on my blog. I have posted spelling mistakes on my blog before…didn’t notice them…fixed it when alerted to it.

          1. Yep. When we post to someone else’s blog we can’t edit our mistakes. That’s quite different from a Facebook post where you can delete it and repost with correct spelling, or as you point out, fixing mistakes on one’s own blog. It just requires one to recognize the error and care enough to fix it.

          2. The big issue here is that Connie uses these proofreading mistakes, typos, and errors on the internet as a way to discredit others. She points these things out routinely. It allows her to ignore the context of arguments when she is proven wrong. Context is what is important. Mistakes will happen; especially on the internet. I admittedly do not spend the same amount of time proofreading internet comments as I would a paper. I give a quick glance and hit submit. It’s nearly impossible to change those comments once they are submitted.

          3. It’s completely impossible to change comments on another person’s blog. Not so with Facebook or one’s own blog.

    3. Jefferson Moon · · Reply


      1. Sorry, Jefferson, that was a bit too strong, in my opinion.

        1. Jefferson Moon · · Reply

          As you stated Al,you don’t read her blog, I do and I was being kind…

          1. I understand, and you probably were. We’ve had some leeway, but I think we’ve gone far enough in challenging specific people, and it seems about the right time to pull it back in.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

%d bloggers like this: