'Civil War History Shuts Out African-Americans'

Goldblog reader Elizabeth Christian writes, in reference to Haley Barbour's whitewashing of history:

I'm a native of Atlanta and a lifelong liberal. My dad was born in Birmingham. His mother's family owned a plantation in South Carolina before the Civil War. I don't know how many people they owned. They owned people is the important thing. I don't know what they were like outside of those facts. They fought for an evil cause. Still, history books assure me that they fought bravely.
No one says that about the Nazis. You might hear statements about the effectiveness of the German army, but you don't hear talk about their honor or valiance in mainstream history classes. The way American history is taught in the South, at least, shuts African Americans out of the Civil War. In the early 90s at a majority black high school, I learned that many factors whose roots all returned to slavery caused the war, and I learned about Frederick Douglass and Harriet Tubman, but the war itself was presented (though never explicitly stated to be) a whites against whites affair. In other parts of the South, students learn that two virtuous armies fought and by the way slavery is bad. Again, it's generally presented as whites against whites. The movie Glory came out while I was in high school, and it was the first significant representation of African American participation in the war. 
The public presentation of the history isn't much better. While battlefields and memorials are starting to include a fuller picture, many public monuments are very focused on deeds and heroes of the Confederacy. It goes beyond the Confederacy. I hate visiting the Capitol building because of the various statues of political luminaries like Senator Thomas Watson. Evil, racist motherfuckers all over the place. This was who had the power. Demographic shifts changed this in Atlanta, but for most of Georgia it took even longer. The facts of history got buried beneath the Myth of the South. I think a lot of African Americans (and other Americans who aren't admirers of the Confederacy) don't even realize there's history that needs to be reclaimed.
When Reconstruction ended, Confederates regained power. They couldn't reinstate slavery legally, so they created systems like share-cropping that reproduced the most profitable aspects of it and then set themselves up in metal and stone as heroes.
One of my father's friends has on occasion mused about how silly it was of the city of Atlanta to rename (Nathaniel Bedford) Forrest Ave. He thought it was an attempt to paper over history. As an adult, I've finally had the courage to argue with him about this. My father's friend is not a lover of the Confederacy, and he didn't want Forrest celebrated, but he thought that renaming the road whitewashed the fact that in the past Forrest was celebrated. My response was basically the road is our road now. Leaving it named after a racial terrorist honors that terrorist, so if we don't want to do that, we need to change the name. I do think that an acceptable balance between removing Forrest's name entirely and leaving the streetname honoring someone who deserves no honor would have been changing the name to Nathaniel Bedford Forrest Was An Evil, Racist Motherfucker Ave. The city of Atlanta chose to rename the street after Ralph McGill.