"Confederate" Dorm at Vandy (court case)

[WSUCougar]

As a historian, this topic is always a fascinating one to me, but often gets bitter and biting quickly. I hope we can keep it civil if we discuss it here.

NASHVILLE, Tennessee (AP) -- A state appeals court heard arguments Wednesday over whether Vanderbilt University can remove the word "Confederate" from a dormitory the United Daughters of the Confederacy helped build in the 1930s.

The Tennessee chapter of the group claims the university's effort to drop the first word from Confederate Memorial Hall violates decades-old contracts, but Vanderbilt claims the contracts are no longer valid.

The judges, who did not say when they will issue a ruling, had strong words for both sides.

"You're arguing social values and making the courts be the tough guy," Judge William Cain said when a Vanderbilt attorney argued the university is completely different than it was in 1934. "The court is faced here with a bilateral contract and not an academic freedom."

Presiding Judge William C. Koch Jr., however, highlighted weaknesses in the heritage group's case, including that parts of the deal were oral and that some of the contract documents entered as evidence were not signed.

"You've put your flags up and marched into battle without ammunition," Koch said.

The United Daughters of the Confederacy, which has 1,300 members in Tennessee and 25,000 nationwide, gave one-third of the cost of the $150,000 building in 1935 as part of a series of contracts with Peabody College. Peabody merged with Vanderbilt in 1979.

In 2002, Vanderbilt Chancellor Gordon Gee cited school diversity efforts when he decided to rename the dorm Memorial Hall.

The word "Confederate" has stirred debate at the private liberal arts university since the residence hall was renovated in 1988. Critics call it offensive in the face of an increasingly diverse student body and faculty, but Confederate heritage groups say the name change is an attempt to rewrite history and reject Southern culture.

"This name was given in good faith," said Daughters of the Confederacy member Jennie Jo Hardison, who attended Wednesday's hearing. "This is not about race at all, and I resent that. It's about a contract."

A lower court ruled in 2003 that the university had a right to remove the name, but "Confederate" remains etched in stone above the building until the case is resolved.

Vanderbilt attorney William Ozier told the three-judge panel that three contracts from 1913 to 1933 are no longer valid.

"There is no contract that requires the maintenance of the name," Ozier said.

Douglas Jones, the heritage group's attorney, said the building was meant to be a memorial to Southern soldiers and that a 1927 contract specifies the name to be Confederate Memorial Hall. Architectural sketches of the building include the name.

"There's no time limits of the contract. It was a memorial," Jones said.

"Is it less of a memorial if it doesn't have the name?" presiding Judge William C. Koch Jr. asked.

"It would not be the memorial it is without the name," Jones replied.

[Suicane75]

If the contract didn't specify an end date for the name, then the name should stay.
Of course that shouldn't stop the DOTC from coming up with a revised name in the interest of stopping all this hubub.

[GrantDawg]

If the college was that offended, they could tear down the building. I doubt the contract states they have to leave the building standing forever. They are trying to have their cake and eat it, too.

[JonInMiddleGA]

The building, the name,the purpose of the memorial, and the act of donation are inseparable AFAIC. Either they all remain or they all go.

[WSUCougar]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

The building, the name,the purpose of the memorial, and the act of donation are inseparable AFAIC. Either they all remain or they all go.

I would tend to agree.

[John Galt]

I assume TN is a "rule against perpetuities" state. If so, the contract will be invalidated. Even if it isn't, there may be some other similar rule that will limit its duration. American law isn't very hospitable to contracts that last forever (or even beyond 1 or 2 lifetimes). The idea of a "dead hand" controlling is not welcome in that many jurisdictions. As a result, I expect this dispute is largely a contract rule issue and, thankfully, the other political baggage should stay on the sidelines. The fact that there isn't even a written contract on the name issue makes it an even worse case for keeping the name.

[Subby]

Just looking at this from a purely legal perspective (I watched A Few Good Men over the break, so I feel qualified to comment here), I think that the issue is fairly black and white. If there is no contractual agreement to keep the name, then Vanderbilt isn't compelled to do so and is within their right to act in as such.

As an aside, I think it is unfortunate that they decided to do this.

[WSUCougar]

Originally Posted by Subby

(I watched A Few Good Men over the break, so I feel qualified to comment here)

"Oh, I forgot, you were out sick the day they taught law at law school."

[flere-imsaho]

"This name was given in good faith," said Daughters of the Confederacy member Jennie Jo Hardison, who attended Wednesday's hearing. "This is not about race at all, and I resent that. It's about a contract."

Give me a break. "Confederate" refers to "Confederate States of America" which was a group formed in protest against the actions of the "United States of America" that sought to limit some of the "Confederate States of America"'s actions, including, most memorably slavery. "Slavery" at that time was, by and large, the enslavement of black people by white people.

This is not rocket science, this is elementary logic.

[GrantDawg]

Originally Posted by flere-imsaho

Give me a break. "Confederate" refers to "Confederate States of America" which was a group formed in protest against the actions of the "United States of America" that sought to limit some of the "Confederate States of America"'s actions, including, most memorably slavery. "Slavery" at that time was, by and large, the enslavement of black people by white people.

This is not rocket science, this is elementary logic.

"Confederate" was also the name which many men fought and died under that never owned a slave and thought that the pratice should end. The people giving this money in the 1920's probably actually knew people who died in that conflict. It had no racist intent at that time, not does it now.

[I. J. Reilly]

Originally Posted by flere-imsaho

Give me a break. "Confederate" refers to "Confederate States of America" which was a group formed in protest against the actions of the "United States of America" that sought to limit some of the "Confederate States of America"'s actions, including, most memorably slavery.

And I guess that's how long it takes for this topic to get bitter and biting.
As to this specific case, should the school really be forced to live by the decisions made by administrators in the 1930's?
I just think it's funny that the Daughters of the Confederacy think their is still hope to salvage the reputation of the word Confederacy. I think that ship has sailed ladies.

[sachmo71]

Originally Posted by GrantDawg

"Confederate" was also the name which many men fought and died under that never owned a slave and thought that the pratice should end. The people giving this money in the 1920's probably actually knew people who died in that conflict. It had no racist intent at that time, not does it now.

Like it or not, the word Confederate (in this country) is associated with slavery, and the attempt to keep the industry going. Some find it offensive, and no rational discussion will change that.

[flere-imsaho]

Originally Posted by I. J. Reilly

I just think it's funny that the Daughters of the Confederacy think their is still hope to salvage the reputation of the word Confederacy. I think that ship has sailed ladies.

That, really, was the crux of my point.

[GrantDawg]

Originally Posted by sachmo71

Like it or not, the word Confederate (in this country) is associated with slavery, and the attempt to keep the industry going. Some find it offensive, and no rational discussion will change that.

True, people who think that way aren't rational, but I was hoping this board of generally highly intelligent people could be rational. My bad.

[flere-imsaho]

Wait a second, you're saying that people who find the word "Confederate" offensive aren't rational?

[WSUCougar]

*flips up glass cover*

*places finger over red self-destruct button*

[GrantDawg]

Originally Posted by flere-imsaho

Wait a second, you're saying that people who find the word "Confederate" offensive aren't rational?

Yes, and quite ignorant of history at that.

[WSUCougar]

Originally Posted by GrantDawg

Yes, and quite ignorant of history at that.

Careful now.

[GrantDawg]

Originally Posted by WSUCougar

Careful now.

You find the word "Confederate" offensive?

[sachmo71]

Originally Posted by GrantDawg

True, people who think that way aren't rational, but I was hoping this board of generally highly intelligent people could be rational. My bad.

Grant,

Why are you overreacting? Did I miss the irrational post?

[John Galt]

Originally Posted by GrantDawg

Yes, and quite ignorant of history at that.

GD, I think you are going a little over the top on this one. I'm actually in the camp that believes the Civil War should really be termed "The War of Northern Aggression" since it was an unlawful invasion of the Confederacy. With that being said, I also believe the Confederacy as a concept is inseparable from slavery. That south of those who supported the right to secede (and did not necessarily endorse slavery) does not mean that the war wasn't ALSO about slavery. One doesn't necessarily exclude the other. And I don't think I'm being "irrational" about it. I just happen to believe things aren't that simple when it comes to the "War of Northern Aggression."

[GrantDawg]

Originally Posted by John Galt

GD, I think you are going a little over the top on this one. I'm actually in the camp that believes the Civil War should really be termed "The War of Northern Aggression" since it was an unlawful invasion of the Confederacy. With that being said, I also believe the Confederacy as a concept is inseparable from slavery. That south of those who supported the right to secede (and did not necessarily endorse slavery) does not mean that the war wasn't ALSO about slavery. One doesn't necessarily exclude the other. And I don't think I'm being "irrational" about it. I just happen to believe things aren't that simple when it comes to the "War of Northern Aggression."

The War had several factors, including slavery. But to say that the word "Conferate" is racist is a leap, and a rather ignorant one at that. JG,do you seriously believe this gift in the 1920's had a racist undertone? Do you really believe any commemoration of the War in the South is racist? I really do give you more credit than that.

[I. J. Reilly]

I hear ya GrantDawg, it would be great to have a historical discussion without all the baggage. But then again, I've always found history to be so interesting because of how well it does in defining current opinions. Just look at everything that has been written about the founding fathers. They have been called everything from godlike to ruthless to fools, depending on the time and current troubles facing the nation.

[WSUCougar]

Originally Posted by GrantDawg

You find the word "Confederate" offensive?

No, but I find your statement concerning ignorance of history misplaced. And a bit ironic.

[GrantDawg]

Originally Posted by WSUCougar

No, but I find your statement concerning ignorance of history misplaced. And a bit ironic.

Why would that be, WSU?

[flere-imsaho]

Originally Posted by flere-imsaho

Wait a second, you're saying that people who find the word "Confederate" offensive aren't rational?

Originally Posted by GrantDawg

Yes, and quite ignorant of history at that.

OK. LOL. I'm done here.

[sachmo71]

Originally Posted by GrantDawg

The War had several factors, including slavery. But to say that the word "Conferate" is racist is a leap, and a rather ignorant one at that. JG,do you seriously believe this gift in the 1920's had a racist undertone? Do you really believe any commemoration of the War in the South is racist? I really do give you more credit than that.

Ignorant or not, people are entitled to draw their own conclusions. If it offends them, they have a right to speak out against it.

[judicial clerk]

Even if changing the name constituted a breach, I think the damages would be nominal.

I consider myself more "sensitive" than average regarding this kind of stuff, but I do not find "Confederate Memorial Hall" to be offensive.

[Ben E Lou]

People are ridiculously irrational about the word. When I was in charge of some reorganization of our ministry, and suggested that rather than a strong centralized structure, we needed a confederation, centered around the ministry in each individual school community, people were so irrational about my usage of confederation (and ignorant of its meaning) that it took waaaaaay longer than was necessary to get done what was clearly the best way to go.

[GrantDawg]

Originally Posted by judicial clerk

Even if changing the name constituted a breach, I think the damages would be nominal.

I consider myself more "sensitive" than average regarding this kind of stuff, but I do not find "Confederate Memorial Hall" to be offensive.

The sad thing is, even I am. I was for changing the Georgia state flag. Mainly because it did not take much to understand that the reason the Stars and Bars was put on the flag in the first place was not to be commerative, but to thumb noses at the anti-segregation movement. It was a dividing point, and a flag should not be dividing but a symbol of all the people of the state.

That is a long shot from saying everything tied to the Southern side of the "War of Nothern Aggresion" is racist at heart.

[GrantDawg]

Originally Posted by sachmo71

Ignorant or not, people are entitled to draw their own conclusions. If it offends them, they have a right to speak out against it.

And I have a right to call them ignorant, right?

[GrantDawg]

Originally Posted by SkyDog

People are ridiculously irrational about the word. When I was in charge of some reorganization of our ministry, and suggested that rather than a strong centralized structure, we needed a confederation, centered around the ministry in each individual school community, people were so irrational about my usage of confederation (and ignorant of its meaning) that it took waaaaaay longer than was necessary to get done what was clearly the best way to go.

Couldn't agree more. The word itself has nothing to do with race. The more this kind of crap goes on, the worse it gets.

[sachmo71]

Originally Posted by GrantDawg

And I have a right to call them ignorant, right?

Depends on what your goal is. Is your goal to deny that their claims are legitimate? Then it doesn't really matter what you call them, because in your mind, they are wrong.

I would imagine in their eyes, you have the same traits.

As long as you try to see the opposing point of view and understand it, that's all you can do.

[WSUCougar]

Originally Posted by GrantDawg

Why would that be, WSU?

This merits a longer treatment than I can offer right now, but in short you’re ascribing heritage-based values to the historical meaning of the term “Confederate” – something which I cannot deny you, and indeed feel in some ways myself (I had many ancestors who served in CSA North Carolina regiments, for example). And yet you are denying others the same thing because their values happen to be opposite to your own. The Confederacy represented the perpetuation of slavery as an institution, and to deny this is to deny the speeches and written words of Confederate leaders made throughout the CSA’s existence. It is a fact, and as such, to continue to commemorate it offends some people.

[GrantDawg]

Originally Posted by WSUCougar

This merits a longer treatment than I can offer right now, but in short you’re ascribing heritage-based values to the historical meaning of the term “Confederate” – something which I cannot deny you, and indeed feel in some ways myself (I had many ancestors who served in CSA North Carolina regiments, for example). And yet you are denying others the same thing because their values happen to be opposite to your own. The Confederacy represented the perpetuation of slavery as an institution, and to deny this is to deny the speeches and written words of Confederate leaders made throughout the CSA’s existence. It is a fact, and as such, to continue to commemorate it offends some people.

It was not the only cause of the CSA. And is not the only reason such memorials as this one was made. I do not deny slavery as a part of the Southern cause of the time, but to say any memorial or even using the word "confederate" is racist is just plain silly.

[GrantDawg]

I give. Whatever. We would all be better off burning down and destroying every mention of the CSA and southern history in general. I'll just go back to sleeping with my sister, and chasing sheep.

[WSUCougar]

No, you're not comprehending what I said:

The Confederacy represented the perpetuation of slavery as an institution, and to deny this is to deny the speeches and written words of Confederate leaders made throughout the CSA’s existence. It is a fact, and as such, to continue to commemorate it offends some people.

The fact that many good things were also represented by the Confederacy doesn't change the fact that its existence was based upon something that is offensive to many, is deeply imbedded in the roots of our nation (North AND South), and remains the primary cause for many of our society's issues.

[Klinglerware]

Obviously, "Confederate" or "Confederacy" on it's own is devoid of context... so what happened with the term and Skydog's ministry is irrational. However, there is a clear connection with "The Confederate States of America" when used in the Vandy case.

I would be a little more careful about labeling people who are offended by the C.S.A. as ignorant or irrational. Not all of the people are offended by the connection to racial issues or slavery, there are a few people who are offended by many Southerners' pride in what many consider a treasonous act (the act of secession itself, and not necessarily the southern lifestyle). While, of course, the issue of slavery is conflated with everything, it should be remembered that many Northerners were not against slavery, but were willing to fight and die to defend the Union against traitors.

[GrantDawg]

Originally Posted by WSUCougar

No, you're not comprehending what I said:
The fact that many good things were also represented by the Confederacy doesn't change the fact that its existence was based upon something that is offensive to many, is deeply imbedded in the roots of our nation (North AND South), and remains the primary cause for many of our society's issues.

You are suggesting that it was only based on slavery? I thought you said you knew history? Whatever.

[sachmo71]

In some cases, the racist claims have been taken to the extreme (such as in Skydogs post), but I can personally see where someone could feel threatened by the idea of the Confederate States of America, the Confederate Battle Flag, and the like. Especially if it were my ancestors who were kept in bondage.

[GrantDawg]

Originally Posted by Klinglerware

I would be a little more careful about labeling people who are offended by the C.S.A. as ignorant or irrational. Not all of the people are offended by the connection to racial issues or slavery, there are a few people who are offended by many Southerners' pride in what many consider a treasonous act (the act of secession itself, and not necessarily the southern lifestyle). While, of course, the issue of slavery is conflated with everything, it should be remembered that many Northerners were not against slavery, but were willing to fight and die to defend the Union against traitors.

That is the part I would exactly defend. I'll say that I believe the cause they fought was wrong, and that we where better off staying together. BUT, I would say they had every right to leave the Union, and if they were traitors, so to where the founders of this country.

[WSUCougar]

Originally Posted by GrantDawg

I give. Whatever. We would all be better off burning down and destroying every mention of the CSA and southern history in general.

*sigh*

No, we would all be better off if Americans as a whole would embrace their history rather than attempting to re-write it, deny it, or otherwise bastardize it. There's plenty of skeletons in the closet...enough for everyone.

[GrantDawg]

Originally Posted by WSUCougar

*sigh*

No, we would all be better off if Americans as a whole would embrace their history rather than attempting to re-write it, deny it, or otherwise bastardize it. There's plenty of skeletons in the closet...enough for everyone.

Exactly what I have been saying, but you seem to be suggesting otherwise. I'm *against* re-writing history and covering up every mention of something that might cause someone *offense* espicially if that offense is ignorant of facts.

[mgadfly]

Would someone from the South explain to me what the Southern Movement is about in their own words. I've read some about it and how it is championed by organizations such as the Sons of Confederate Veterans and United Daughters of the Confederacy, but as a Westerner (I don't think we consider ourselves either Southern or Northern out here, or at least I don't) I have never really seen a sufficient definition about what the Movement is supposed to be about.

The usual rallying cry is "heritage" but this is ambiguous and confusing without a more exact definition. Plus, I suppose many people consider Southern Heritage as having a great deal to do with slavery and segregation (not that I'm trying to make this point, but just seeing if any of you have a good idea what is meant by Heritage and Southern Movement).

[WSUCougar]

Originally Posted by GrantDawg

You are suggesting that it was only based on slavery? I thought you said you knew history? Whatever.

Don't pop off at me. On this topic I am on firm historical ground.

Just as a taste, here's a portion of the famous Cornerstone Speech made by Alexander Stephens, Vice President of the Confederate States of America, in 1861:

But not to be tedious in enumerating the numerous changes for the better, allow me to allude to one other -- though last, not least. The new constitution has put at rest, forever, all the agitating questions relating to our peculiar institution -- African slavery as it exists amongst us -- the proper status of the negro in our form of civilization. This was the immediate cause of the late rupture and present revolution. Jefferson in his forecast, had anticipated this, as the "rock upon which the old Union would split." He was right. What was conjecture with him, is now a realized fact. But whether he fully comprehended the great truth upon which that rock stood and stands, may be doubted. The prevailing ideas entertained by him and most of the leading statesmen at the time of the formation of the old constitution, were that the enslavement of the African was in violation of the laws of nature; that it was wrong in principle, socially, morally, and politically. It was an evil they knew not well how to deal with, but the general opinion of the men of that day was that, somehow or other in the order of Providence, the institution would be evanescent and pass away. This idea, though not incorporated in the constitution, was the prevailing idea at that time. The constitution, it is true, secured every essential guarantee to the institution while it should last, and hence no argument can be justly urged against the constitutional guarantees thus secured, because of the common sentiment of the day. Those ideas, however, were fundamentally wrong. They rested upon the assumption of the equality of races. This was an error. It was a sandy foundation, and the government built upon it fell when the "storm came and the wind blew."

Our new government is founded upon exactly the opposite idea; its foundations are laid, its corner- stone rests upon the great truth, that the negro is not equal to the white man; that slavery -- subordination to the superior race -- is his natural and normal condition. [Applause.] This, our new government, is the first, in the history of the world, based upon this great physical, philosophical, and moral truth. This truth has been slow in the process of its development, like all other truths in the various departments of science. It has been so even amongst us. Many who hear me, perhaps, can recollect well, that this truth was not generally admitted, even within their day. The errors of the past generation still clung to many as late as twenty years ago. Those at the North, who still cling to these errors, with a zeal above knowledge, we justly denominate fanatics. All fanaticism springs from an aberration of the mind -- from a defect in reasoning. It is a species of insanity. One of the most striking characteristics of insanity, in many instances, is forming correct conclusions from fancied or erroneous premises; so with the anti-slavery fanatics; their conclusions are right if their premises were. They assume that the negro is equal, and hence conclude that he is entitled to equal privileges and rights with the white man. If their premises were correct, their conclusions would be logical and just -- but their premise being wrong, their whole argument fails. I recollect once of having heard a gentleman from one of the northern States, of great power and ability, announce in the House of Representatives, with imposing effect, that we of the South would be compelled, ultimately, to yield upon this subject of slavery, that it was as impossible to war successfully against a principle in politics, as it was in physics or mechanics. That the principle would ultimately prevail. That we, in maintaining slavery as it exists with us, were warring against a principle, a principle founded in nature, the principle of the equality of men. The reply I made to him was, that upon his own grounds, we should, ultimately, succeed, and that he and his associates, in this crusade against our institutions, would ultimately fail. The truth announced, that it was as impossible to war successfully against a principle in politics as it was in physics and mechanics, I admitted; but told him that it was he, and those acting with him, who were warring against a principle. They were attempting to make things equal which the Creator had made unequal.

[GrantDawg]

Originally Posted by WSUCougar

Don't pop off at me. On this topic I am on firm historical ground.

Just as a taste, here's a portion of the famous Cornerstone Speech made by Alexander Stephens, Vice President of the Confederate States of America, in 1861:

So, this proves everyone in the CSA believed exactly like this and this was the only reason the CSA was formed or people fought for it. So, if I found a US Senator saying the exact same thing in 1879 (or 1960 for that matter), then I would be justified in saying that the USA is a racist , and that any mention of it is offensive?

[Klinglerware]

Originally Posted by GrantDawg

That is the part I would exactly defend. I'll say that I believe the cause they fought was wrong, and that we where better off staying together. BUT, I would say they had every right to leave the Union, and if they were traitors, so to where the founders of this country.

Fair enough. I would agree that the founders could be considered traitors. The difference of course, is that the American founders' rebellion worked.

I do have a question though, I assure you that it's an innocent one not meant to inflame. I never did understand why many southerners still haven't let go of the past, as manifested by the steadfast honoring of Confederate leaders and symbols even almost 140 years after reunification. I also find it quite paradoxical (again because of the secession angle) that many of the people most in favor of honoring the Confederate past are also the people who have the strongest "America #1" beliefs. Any insights?

[GrantDawg]

Originally Posted by Klinglerware

Fair enough. I would agree that the founders could be considered traitors. The difference of course, is that the American founders' rebellion worked.

I do have a question though, I assure you that it's an innocent one not meant to inflame. I never did understand why many southerners still haven't let go of the past, as manifested by the steadfeast honoring of Confederate leaders and symbols even almost 140 years after reunification. I also find it quite paradoxical (again because of the secession angle) that many of the people most in favor of honoring the Confederate past are also the people who have the strongest "America #1" beliefs. Any insights?

I can't answer that completely. It is the same reason anyone wants to have a memory of the past, and honor their ancestors. I'm not a member of the "sons of the confederacy" or anything of that sort, and never would be. But I do understand that many people like having a deep tie to family history, and that has a lot to do with it. (There are also those who are truly racist, and that can't be completely ignored).

[WSUCougar]

Originally Posted by GrantDawg

So, this proves everyone in the CSA believed exactly like this and this was the only reason the CSA was formed or people fought for it. So, if I found a US Senator saying the exact same thing in 1879 (or 1960 for that matter), then I would be justified in saying that the USA is a racist , and that any mention of it is offensive?

Don't be ridiculous - how can you make that leap? What it "proves" to a certain degree is that the Confederacy was founded on the institution of slavery. And, as such, to commemorate its existence is to commemorate something that was founded on slavery. That is offensive to some people.

But the sad thing is, most every white American in that era was a racist in our terms.

My point is that both lines of thought are legitimate.

[WSUCougar]

Originally Posted by Klinglerware

I do have a question though, I assure you that it's an innocent one not meant to inflame. I never did understand why many southerners still haven't let go of the past, as manifested by the steadfast honoring of Confederate leaders and symbols even almost 140 years after reunification. I also find it quite paradoxical (again because of the secession angle) that many of the people most in favor of honoring the Confederate past are also the people who have the strongest "America #1" beliefs. Any insights?

I'd like to take a crack at this, but I have to go offline for awhile.