Some Questions for Andy Hall

 Over at Kevin Levin's flog, following the post about the controversy at Beauvoir, Andy Hall makes one of his usual harangues against Southern heritage. I'll include it at the conclusion of this blog post.

Meanwhile, I have some questions for Andy about his comments. Of course, he won't answer. He has avoided me like the plague ever since I confirmed that my purpose is to question the motives, or agenda, or character of heritage bashers such as himself, Simpson, Levin, etc. (Read about that here: Pusillanimous Poltroons.) These folks love to question the motives, agenda, character, intelligence and knowledge of Southern heritage people -- and not just to question it, but to denigrate, scorn and ridicule. For all their protest that it's about history, not heritage with them, it really is more about hate than history.

 So anyway, some parts of his comment about Beauvoir got me curious, and I want to ask some questions. He's too cowardly to come here and answer, or anywhere else, probably, but I think anyone can see these are perfectly legit and pertinent questions, and his refusal to answer will be telling.

Andy sez: For a long time now, “Confederate heritage” has amounted to little more that the display of more and bigger battle flags. It really is that shallow.

 (1) Where did your information come from that this is what it amounts to? Is this not merely your opinion? And as such, what is it based on; your own personal observations? How do you know you're seeing the whole picture? Has it occurred to you that maybe it is your observation, or your prejudice, that really are that shallow?

Andy: My guess is that Bertram Hayes-Davis, who is undoubtedly committed to the legacy of his ancestor, but is also someone who came to Beauvoir from the corporate world, understands instinctively that you can carry the unreconstructed rebel shtick just so far before it becomes a liability in the effort to garner wider public support for an organization or business.

(2) [a] Your guess is that's what he understands? What is  your guess based on?  Please define "unreconstructed rebel shtick". Give an example of it. Substantiate that it is real and not a product of your imagination, or your prejudice and desire to denigrate. [b] How do you know his motives regarding the legacy of his ancestor? Is this simply a conclusion you've drawn from reading recent news stories?

Andy: We’ve seen it over and over again, from the Confederate Air Force to Maurice’s Piggy Pork (sic) Barbecue, where organizations recognize that loudly banging the Confederate heritage drum is tangential, or even detrimental, to the organization’s core purpose and the need to win as wide support as possible.

(3) Since the Confederate Air Force (now the Commemorative Air Force) is not and never was a Confederate heritage organization, can you please advice when and how they banged the Confederate heritage drum?

Maurice Bessinger was the target of a concerted campaign of media smears and financial ruin by Columbia's The State newspaper, the NAACP and their individual followers and other who bullied grocery retailers into removing Bessinger's product from their shelves. In at least one instance, people entered a supermarket and threw bottles of Bessinger's sauce on the floor, breaking them and creating a mess --  a "lesson" that surely was not lost on other supermarkets. Punishment for such vandalism wasn't reported anywhere that I could find.

(4) As in Bessinger's case, how is becoming the purposeful target of financial ruin by NON-Confederate heritage organizations and individuals a recognition that "banging the Confederate heritage drum is tangential, or even detrimental, to the organization’s core purpose"?

(5) Will you be man enough to admit that you have mischaracterized these two cases in order to mischaracterized heritage, and make an invalid point?

Andy: Beauvoir's "...future as a viable museum and research institution is certainly threatened if visitors to Biloxi expect they’re going to get a haranguing about states’ rights and black Confederates and other heritage talking points."

(6) Why would visitors expect that?

(7) Have you ever visited Beauvoir?

(8) If you have, did you get a haranguing about states’ rights and black Confederates and other heritage talking points?

I contacted somebody I know who visited Beauvoir before Katrina and I asked her about her visit, and whether there was haranguing about states’ rights and black Confederates and other heritage talking points. Her reply:

There wasn’t any haranguing about anything. We pretty much wandered around and looked at things. A woman accompanied us into the house and told us about this object and that object, like, that some of the upholstered furniture had been stuffed with Spanish moss, and the process they’d gone through to prepare the moss for such usage (and I doubt that any of those pieces of furniture still exist, although it’s possible, I suppose). I’m trying to remember, but I think the kinds of things she said weren’t Confederate or anti-Confederate, just telling us about how the family would have lived in the house. There wasn’t any “guide” or anything when we went through the museum building. There were plaques that explained what the display items were, so there wasn’t a need for a guide. And when we walked the grounds and visited the graveyard, we were unaccompanied.

(9) Why should I believe that your descriptions and characterizations of the "heritage crowd" are objective and accurate rather than deep mischaracterizations that flow from your hatred of Confederate heritage and your desire to denigrate?

______________________

Andy's entire comment at Levin's flog:

For a long time now, “Confederate heritage” has amounted to little more that the display of more and bigger battle flags. It really is that shallow.

Jefferson Davis is best known as president of the Confederacy, of course, but there’s a whole lot more to his life and public career than the four years between 1861 and 1865. It’s not really surprising that the SCV would try to make Beauvoir a top-to-bottom Confederate shrine, but that misses a lot of the potential there.

My guess is that Bertram Hayes-Davis, who is undoubtedly committed to the legacy of his ancestor, but is also someone who came to Beauvoir from the corporate world, understands instinctively that you can carry the unreconstructed rebel shtick just so far before it becomes a liability in the effort to garner wider public support for an organization or business. We’ve seen it over and over again, from the Confederate Air Force to Maurice’s Piggy Pork Barbecue, where organizations recognize that loudly banging the Confederate heritage drum is tangential, or even detrimental, to the organization’s core purpose and the need to win as wide support as possible.

Beauvoir can’t be disengaged from the Confederacy in the same way, of course, but its future as a viable museum and research institution is certainly threatened if visitors to Biloxi expect they’re going to get a haranguing about states’ rights and black Confederates and other heritage talking points. I really do believe that at some subconscious level, the heritage crowd would rather see institutions like Beauvoir and the Museum of the Confederacy implode, rather than adapt to the changing reality of the United States (and the South) in the early 21st century. They would gladly sacrifice those institutions and their collections for the sake of being able to commiserate about “cultural genocide” on Facebook. A continually-and mutually-reinforced sense of resentful victimhood has been both their defining purpose and long-term goal for a long time now.