With the anniversery of Antietam just past and the premier of The Civil War and Death on PBS tonight it is fitting to also mention a post made by Richard Williams over on the Old Virginia Blog dealing with the ongoing struggle of the Oakwook Cemetery Restoration Committe and the Federal Government. All three items bring death to the forefront of our thoughts of the war and the past. Antietam was the bloodiest day in our collective history…more men fell during the twenty-four hours of September 17th than on anyother day. PBS will air starting tonight a new documentary based on Drew Gilpen Faust’s new book, The Republic of Suffering on how Americans dealt with the enourmous death toll of the war.
Richard Williams in his post on the fight between the Oakwood Cemetery Restoration Committee and the Veterans Administration brings the debate about the Civil War dead into the 21st Century. It appears that the VA has changed the process it has for replacing missing and damaged stones for veterans. According to Civil War News article:
“A Confederate soldier’s grave, if it has no grave marker, is considered unmarked and is eligible for a VA headstone, Erbe said, provided the NOK or descendant signs the application.
If the Confederate grave already has a marker, even an illegible or broken one, it is considered marked, and is not eligible for a VA replacement unless it was originally provided by the federal government.
A Union soldier’s grave with a government headstone is marked, but is eligible for replacement if damaged or illegible because it was originally provided by the federal government, he said.
In the aftermath of the Civil War, the federal government buried Union soldiers in national cemeteries but left the burial of Confederate soldiers to the states and private groups like the Ladies’ Memorial Associations which sprang up across the South.
Since virtually all grave markers in Confederate cemeteries were provided by non-U.S. government sources, this excludes broken or illegible ones being replaced by the VA.”
This has angered those trying to restore Oakwood Cemetery in Richmond. But it appears that the struggle with the VA is not the only struggle they have dealt with on the long road to restoring Oakwood. The city of Richmond and the State of Virginia have also declined to spend the money to erect permanent headstones for the some nearly 17,000 Confederates in the cemetery.
Richard Williams made this commet about the situation:
I have an ancestor buried there whose grave is marked only by a number. It is a national disgrace. But, since these men are Confederate soldiers, they have few supporters.
Here is the question I have…Should the Federal Government, despite its past practices dating as far back as 1906, continue to pay for and maintain the graves of those men who fought against the government? From the short history of the cemetery given on the Restore Oakwood page the state of affairs in Oakwood is anything but the fault of the Federal Government. The situation at Oakwood is a direct result of the tremendous number of dead from the war, the decentralized nature of the Southern Confederacy and theh failure of Richmond citizens to keep the Confederate graves in proper condition. From the short history:
“Despite the claims of beauty in 1862, Oakwood bore a seedy and disheveled appearance by war’s end. Visitors “found the plots most unsightly. Many of the graves had settled badly; handmade, wooden headboards were missing or damaged [and] names obliterated…”
The history contiues:
“By 1877 the wooden headboards erected in 1866 and 1867 had rotted to such an extent that the “City Council Committee on Cemeteries” asked permission to remove all the headboards. The Oakwood Association resisted that suggestion fro a few months, but finally consented in the autumn of 1887, “as there was no means of having them renewed and it was an inevitable fact that they could not remain in their decayed condition.” The city promised to replace the wooden headboards with more permanent markers, but apparently did not do so. For approximately 15 years the Confederate graves at Oakwood remained unmarked.”
Richard Williams ends his post with this question…a good question, but one I suspect he would like to blame Obama for or any academic for that matter:
My question: Is this “new interpretation” simply due to budget constraints or an attitude of disrespect for America’s soldiers?
What is the answer to this question and the question I pose earlier? In my opinion the Federal Government should have never agreed to treat Confederate Soldiers/Veterans as equal to Union Veterans. They were never equal in the first place. One fought to preserve the Union, the other to rip it apart…to refuse the Constitutional election of Lincoln to the Presidency and to expand and support slavery.
However not all is lost. If the policy of the Federal Government will not allow for the marking of Confederate graves in Oakwood then the SCV’s and SHPG have a once in a lifetime opportunity falling right in their hands. What better way to express the “State’s Rights” mentality than paying for those stones out of the pockets of those who support Southern Heritage? Susan Hathaway, Tripp Lewis, David Tatum and their friends could be freed from the twice weekly trips to the VMFA to flag the museums decision not to fly Confederate flags on the Pelham Chapel to using their considerable social networks to garner the money needed for the 17,200 dead Confederates in Oakwood.
Heck, this is even a cause I would back…preserving the memory of the men who actually fought the war not some preceived wrong committed against a flag or someones “heritage”. The men in Oakwood should be remembered for the sacrifices they gave in the line of duty…however don’t burden the pockets of all Americans…just Southerners. That is how they wanted it…now they can have it.
Susan F. Hathaway doing what she does best!
These Confederate soldiers were fighting for what they believed in just as the Union soldiers were. Both sides suffered greatly and the unfortunate ones who died should be given the very same honors whether or not they fought for the north or the south. When it was all said and done, whether they liked it or not, they were all Americans. Were the southern soldiers from WWII buried in different cemetaries than northern americans? Or Vietnam? Absolutely not. Give them a proper marker. You people run up to the Japanese and Germans and say, Oh gee, wasn’t that a great fight we had at Guadacanal, Battle of the bulge, Omaha Beach, etc, etc. Let’s be friends. Let bygones be bygones, it was a long time ago, blah blah blah. What petty bullshit this is to lord it over some long dead fighting men.
Neil,
You seem to disagree with my comment about treating those confederates equally to the Union dead of the war. Granted my opinion is that they should not, but I also stated that I would be willing to get involved (and I may still do so) to make sure these soldier’s graves are marked despite my opinion. The marking of these graves is, in my opinion, a much better cause than standing out front of the Virginia Museum of Fine Art flagging some preceived heritage violation. So despite what you think of me I too am for marking those grave properly despite the fact I don’t think those who fought against the government of the United States should be treated equally.
Also, let me be clear…the men from the south fighting in WWII or any other war besides the Civil War were fighting FOR the United States of America…not against it like those buried in the confederate section of Oakwood.
You might have a point Corey – it’s pretty much what happened after the WBTS – mostly private concerns funded reburials, headstones, monuments, etc – while the folks up North then (as now) tended to be more in favor of using OPM (other people’s money via the U.S. Treasury). Should the NPS defund all monuments and parks dedicated to Native Americans and stop maintaining and protecting burial grounds, etc. That costs the taxpayers money, you know. And Native Americans did fight very hard to stop Westward expansion and “manifest destiny” – these people were certainly not fighting FOR the United States of America, now were they? Do you hate them as much as you hate dead Confederates?
Richard,
Thanks for commenting. I think there is a distinction to be made in terms of the Confederate soldier vs. the American Indian. American Indians have been given a very bad shake when it comes to the treatment they received from the US government and they did fight back against that poor treatment and the taking of their lands. Any people in the same situation should be able to fight back. However, that was not the case in the south. The election of Lincoln to the presidency was fully constitutional and the south refused to accept the outcome and resorted to war and its own fate.
Also, let me be very clear….I do not hate the dead confederate soldier…I hate what they fought for. I have stated before that no confederate monuments should be torn down or graves disturbed and in this case should be marked. However, I do not think that the government…the one that they instigated the war against…should pay for that marking. Should there be a need to seek donations for marking these soldiers grave I would consider donating money for such a good cause. I have also stated that causes like this are much more appropriate to southern heritage than some preceived violation because someone thinks a flag should be flying somewher.
Thanks again for the comment.
“Should there be a need to seek donations for marking these soldiers grave I would consider donating money for such a good cause.” Thanks – I’ll keep that in mind for future reference.
We both know that the effort to mark these graves, recognized equally by the Federal government since 1906, was part of the desire for reconciliation after the WBTS. I believe that effort, in part, helped heal some of the wounds and instill a renewed patriotism among Southerners which is still evident.
Changing that policy now just reopens old wounds but, given the divisive nature of our current government and society, I’m not at all surprised.
Best Regards,
RGW
I’ve read about this dispute previously, and I have some questions that I haven’t seen answered elsewhere.
1. How precise are the burial records at this cemetery? Are they precise enough that individual stones can be placed with a reasonable certainty of being over the correct individual? Or is it a case where only the general plot is known? That would make a difference, I think.
2. What’s the actual cost involved? What does it cost the VA to provide a stone like that? (I sent a message to the VA asking about that months ago, and never got a response.) I priced some other stones recently, and I can imagine a standard veteran’s stone costing upwards of $500 including engraving, shipping and installation. For 17,000 graves, that’s $8.5M. How does that compare to the VA’s total spending on CW stones? My guess is that it’s many years’ worth of funding, all focused on one cemetery. I can see why, regardless of the merits of the case, a bureaucrat charged with keeping costs down would balk at this plan.
I think what I’d suggest, frankly, is pressure the VA-1 Representative, Robert J. Wittman, to push for this, and maybe even earmark the funds for the VA to accomplish this over, say, the next 5 years. (All the money in the world can’t get it done immediately.) Lord knows, if Ron Paul can bring almost $400M in earmarks to my district in a single FY, Wittman can surely do that same for his.
I know that the SCV has solicited the assistance of Senator Jim Webb and he’s been in contact with the V.A. – but he’s retiring, so I’m not sure how much influence he can have. The V.A.’s position is somewhat recent – March 2012. As the referenced article points out, the current V.A.’s “general counsel” has “reinterpreted” the law. The way Washington is spending money, I have trouble believing the reason for this is concern over spending, but I suppose it could be.
“I have trouble believing the reason for this is concern over spending, but I suppose it could be.”
Perhaps not spending per se, but certainly the scope of this one project is unprecedented in terms of providing stones for long-deceased veterans. My guess is that, aside from those for new decedants, the VA only provides hundreds, or maybe a few thousand, other stones annually. I can see, unfortunately, an administrator instinctively balking at that. The VA is not known for go-get-em, thinking-outside-the-box admins.
In regards to records, my understanding is that the records are detailed enough to qualify for headstones. My own ancestor is buried there and he is number 91 on a stone with 2 other veterans. Several SCV members spent quite a bit of time going through the cemetery records, confirming and reconciling numbers, graves, and names. Many buried there died at Chimborazo (as did my ancestor) which was very close by.
Thanks.
You’re welcome. Of course, the additional burden requiring next of kin signature will also, as the article points out, make it nearly impossible to get new stones for many Union veterans as well.