Problems with the Murphy Paper

 

We've had one historian critique the latest paper by husband and wife duo Brian and Katie Murphy; now Shoalanda herself will offer up comments on both style and content: The Southern Cross of Honor.

What can we say? The first sentence itself contains two grammatical errors and one error in punctuation. 

Original: The murder of George Floyd in 2020 sparked a renewed push to critically examine Confederate monuments located across the US South in prominent places such as courthouses, college campuses, and public parks.

Corrected: The murder of George Floyd in 2020 sparked a renewed push for a critical examination of the Confederate monuments located across the U.S. South in such prominent places as courthouses, college campuses, and public parks.

We could go on to dissect the entire excuse for a scholarly article; however, we'll merely say the introductory sentence sets the ungrammatical tone for the total work.

Now, let's look at some of the fallacious statements in the article:

1. The laurel wreath signifies a winner? At times, yes. It also signifies an important person. Perhaps those who had fought for the C.S.A. were important to many living at the time this symbol was incorporated into the grave markers now condemned by the Murphys? Just how scholarly is an assumption?

2. A U.D.C. resolution compares the C.S.A. to such sovereign nations as England and Germany? While not giving full diplomatic recognition to the C.S.A., Great Britain conducted business with the new country, selling it weapons and other supplies. Perhaps the U.D.C. referring to the C.S.A. as a sovereign entity is akin to calling the Murphys actual writers?

3. The use of the word "distinguished" to describe Gov. Edward O'Neal's military service to the C.S.A.? We sincerely doubt that E. O'Neal's grave is the only one in this nation adorned with the word distinguished, no matter how mundane that person's military performance or what country he served. Yet, E. O'Neal's wartime actions were hardly commonplace according to Wikipedia, which enumerates these acts before citing his role as governor. Did Brian or Katie even check E. O'Neal's war record before calling foul on his monument?

4. Confederate dead were buried as veterans in the “Soldier’s Rest” section alongside those who fought on behalf of, rather than against, the U.S. Army? This is perhaps the most problematic of the Murphys' complaints. In the years following the war, the Sons of Confederate Veterans and the Sons of the Grand Army of the Republic worked together on civic projects (i.e. what is now Wilson Park) and generally maintained a good relationship with each other. A 1905 newspaper mentions that when the S.G.A.R. held its statewide meeting in Florence, members of the O'Neal Chapter of the S.C.V. were invited to some of the festivities. Perhaps Brian and Katie would prefer the dead of Soldier's Rest were segregated or even that the Confederate veterans were disinterred and their remains relegated to a trash heap?

5. Confederate dead aren't war veterans? These men no longer had a country to honor them. If the U.S. Congresses of 1906 and 1929 chose to designate these dead as war veterans, who are the Murphys to disagree in 2023?

6. Comparing 2,000+ hooligans of 2021 with at least 750,000 trained and semi-trained military who fought in actual battles 160 years earlier? Let's just say if a century and a half from now, the insurrectionists of January 6th have monuments dedicated to their misguided actions, then this pseudo-scholarship may have some merit.

*****