Seems like a good idea to me. The internet lately has proven that there are millions of people who think these Confederate statues are the only relics of American History we have left, and therefore utterly priceless. Shouldn’t be too hard for the taxpayers to make a little money auctioning off statues, and if nobody wants to pay, well, then no one will complain when they are melted down into scrap or broken up to cover someone’s driveway.
I know I’m a little late to the party, but I’ve been thinking about this for a while. I’m from the deep, deep south (a small city in rural Georgia) and am a person of color (but I’m not black, which I imagine makes a lot of difference in these issues).
Anyways, if you grew up where I grew up, when I grew up there (the 90s and early 2000s), you were basically either black or white. There wasn’t really much space for “other.” So because I dressed, talked, lived near, went to school with and generally kind of acted like, “white people,” that’s who I got lumped in with. So I grew up idolizing the civil war “heroes.” I bought the romanticized version of Robert E Lee as the noblest noble who ever nobled, who truly despised the idea of ever even hurting a fly, much less owning a person, but so deeply loved his home state of Virginia that he could not take up arms against her and fight with the Union. He was, of course, the Greatest General who Ever Lived and a truly military genius (maybe up until his modern day parallel, Erwin Rommel), what with him coming so very close to winning despite his paucity of resources. He was the epitome of a Southern Gentleman, and we shall never be graced with the likes of such again. Stonewall Jackson was like your crazy but loveable Uncle Jeeter, who didn’t take shit from nobody and you knew he’d have your back in a hot second. Jefferson Davis, blah blah blah.
Grant was a drunk layabout who somehow stumbled his way to victory and managed a near loss despite having every victory, and Sherman was essentially a genocidal maniac.
So then I left the deep South and grew up a bit and my understanding of all these issues changed and became more nuanced. But honest to God, I never, ever realized that the leaders of the Confederacy committed treason until I read it on this very board after Charlottesville. It made total sense once I read it; of course, they took up arms against the United States of America, but honestly it never occurred to me to see it like that. I never thought of the CSA as a “foreign” army; the Civil War was more like a family dispute. And of all things, they took up arms for the right of humans to own other humans! (Oh yeah, I believed the civil war wasn’t about slavery but states right, as well, growing up)
Anyways, so my first reaction was, “hell yeah take them statues down! why should we celebrate traitors? would we put a monument up to Benedict Arnold?”
But the more I contemplated it, the more I started to wonder where it would end. There is SO MUCH in the South named after civil war icons, particularly Lee. So many towns, schools, streets, public buildings, etc. And the issue of Stone Mountain, GA . . .
So I understand where Sampiro is coming from. I definitely don’t think these statues should have been put up in the first place. But now, aren’t they also a part of our history? Aren’t they a reminder of an ugly time in American history when African-Americans were beginning to get some rights, so in a wave of white supremacist furor, the KKK was re-founded, monuments to civil war icons were put up, and jim crow laws were developed? I like the plaque + altering the statue in some way to make it look less “proud” idea.
Reminders for ugly times are for books and museums. We should certainly remember that we have a less than perfect past, but putting up icons to it is celebrating it and glorifying it. If you looked at it as a reminder of our ugly past, and a reminder not to do that again, it would be a different thing, like how the germans treat the “holocaust centers”. They keep them around so that people can be reminded of how evil and terrible people can be, and to remind them not to be that way in the future. They are not there to fondly remember the war that they “almost won”, the war that they were on the losing side, but not necessarily the wrong side. They do not keep them around to keep the fight going in the minds of the public.
There is no Auschwitz Elementary school, no Rommel High, and no Hitler Avenue (I assume, I am not german, and my research consisted of googling those terms and not seeing any relevant results, if I am wrong they should do something about that). They remember these people and places and events just fine without these reminders of their past sitting in the public square.
And, it is also important to keep in mind that these were ugly times, but they were not symmetrically ugly times. You have whites in power oppresing blacks. A reminder of that time is not just a reminder to the whites about what they did, but it is a reminder to blacks as to what was done to them. As long as these reminders of those times stay in the public square, tensions between ethnicities that used to be at odds with each other will not cool easily.
Imagine that someone kidnapped your kids. They raped some of them, tortured the others, and killed one, but you eventually got them back and the kidnappers were arrested. Then the town where you live put up a statues honoring them and their noble pursuit of kidnapping your kids, and you had to walk/drive by and see the memorial to them every day. Do you think you’d be cool if someone offered to fix the situation by putting a plaque on the memorial to the kidnappers? I mean, there was an ugly time in Gestalt’s town history where his kids were kidnapped, raped, and murdered, aren’t they a part of that history?
I don’t think it’s a coincidence that the people worried about removing cheap, mass-produced monuments celebrating horrible actions are people of the race that wouldn’t be victims of the horrible actions celebrated. No one would ask “why do you want the town to take down the monument to your child’s kidnappers?” or argue that it’s a valuable piece of history, but…
Sure, but by that logic, do we then need to rename every Lee St, Lee County, Leesburg, Robert E. Lee High School? Let’s not do things by half measures.
And, you do realize that the logic of, “think of how terrible it must feel for <member of oppressed group x> to have to constantly see tributes to <leader of oppressor group> who is being celebrated for <oppressing group x>” means that a lot of monuments in this, and other, countries are going to have to be revisited, right? How many things are named after Queen Victoria in countries that used to be British colonies?
I know the discussion at hand today is monuments in the American South. But really we are discussing the underlying principle and how it should be applied across multiple situations.
Yes
I don’t know how many monuments there are to English colonists that are left around the world, but to follow your argument would be to say that these countries that were under british rule, but are no longer, should not be allowed to take down these monuments to their oppressed past.
Not really, we have been discussing the underlying principles, and how they should be applied specifically to the statues that celebrate the leaders of the confederacy.
I am perfectly fine with not having anything run by the US government named for people who committed treason against the US government. I’m not sure why you write this as though it’s some shocking thing that I might not have considered. Robert E Lee, traitor to this great country and slaveowner should be reviled by history, not held up as some kind of hero for forswearing his oath, attacking the legitimate government, and fighting for the right to rape black women.
Yes, I’m aware that throughout human history, humans have reevaluated monuments and changed or removed them based on changing ethics, morals, or other situations. What I didn’t realize is just how many people, like you, seem to think that once a monument to someone goes up, even a cheap mass-produced one that’s really more of a racist lawn gnome than a historical marker, it must stay forever and that it’s completely unprecedented to ever remove a monument.
I have zero problem with countries that used to be British Colonies renaming things in their country to non-British names if they want to. Seriously, it bothers me about as much as renaming a stadium because the sponsor changed. And I actively encourage those people to get rid of any cheaply mass-produced monuments that specifically celebrate atrocities against a particular group that were put up by people who support future atrocities against that group. You know, like the Confederate monuments.
Are you saying that you object to people in countries that used to be British colonies renaming their own streets and other objects? FYI, It’s been going on since 1776 in the US, and worldwide really picked up after 1945 with the wave of decolonization.
Oh. Like Rhodesia, um, I mean Zimbabwe.
They aren’t a “reminder”; they are a way of announcing the desire of the local people to bring those ugly times *back. *They are like a burning cross that never goes out, a threat of tyranny and murder.
In a time when a known racist is President and neo-Nazis openly march, it’s unrealistic to consider them relics of the past; they are an announcement of where the dominant political faction in this country wants to take this nation.
So, this is a consistent philosophy I can understand and agree with, in a way. But it would be a huge investment in time and money. For example, let’s say, to “deconfederify” everything in the South would cost . . . $2 billion. And that money could either be spent on taking down monuments, renaming schools/streets/towns, resurfacing stone mountain, changing various fight songs that reflect confederate pride, etc, etc, OR that money could be spent on programs which support the african-american community in other ways (scholarship programs, headstart programs, etc). If a regionwide referendum were held and the former confederate states as a whole chose to spend that money on the programs instead of renaming things, would that be evidence of a regionwide racist sentiment?
I’m not saying monuments/memorials should never be revisited and taken down. It’s just that we should remember that it’s a slippery slope. I was reminded recently of a 19th century Russian church which was destroyed by the Communists and then rebuilt in the 1990s.
Not that I’m saying in a few decades we’ll look back and say, “hey those CSA leaders had the right idea after all! Let’s put all those monuments back up!” It’s more the idea that these really do have to be measured considerations. The NYT has a great quiz about various controversial monuments in different cities and if they should come down, and it’s fairly eye-opening. I had a difficult time choosing for many of them, as did other readers.
Again, I think we’ve settled the debate once and for all about the morality of chattel slavery as practiced by the slaveholders in the former CSA, and I very much understand the sentiment behind wanting to take down all the memorials/monuments, and am not very much opposed to doing so. I also agree that we can draw a hard line between the confederate leaders and, say, Thomas Jefferson, who was also a slaveholder and slave rapist, because the confederate leaders were traitors who are essentially defined by their treasonous actions and TJ had other positive qualities. I just wanted to bring to light the subsequent issues that will arise from this movement (cost and whether that money could be better spent, and implications for other memorials).
I don’t play the ‘absurdly unrealistic hypothetical’ game, and the idea that the accounting would work this way, the money would all go to one pool, that states would agree to and somehow hold a region-wide referendum, and that those would be the two options is absurd. That’s not how any of the funding for any of these projects work, and your accounting doesn’t even touch on the fact that lots of money is spent maintaining racist monuments that would be saved.
I mean, you’re complaining about how woefully expensive it would be to remove the statues when the state of NC is spending money to prosecute people for engaging in volunteer statue removal, and coming up with a referendum to choose between removing statues or funding college programs when NC (and other states) force colleges to spend money maintaining statues!
It’s not a slippery slope advocate taking down cheaply mass produced racist monuments put up by white supremacist organizations to intimidate black people. And if renaming towns, streets, stadiums, and the like based on changes in society is a slippery slope, we’ve been on that slope for several millennia without falling down so I find your worry more than a little misplaced.
OMG, I have been so reluctant to join in on any of these conversations for fear of being misunderstood, and especially today when I am making hurricane preparations, but I gotta say this, and if i get barbequed, I guess I just will.
I live in Savannah, I have been an avid reader of Southern history for pretty much all my life, especially Georgia history. And I am perfectly capable of being objective about it. I understand full well that the Confederate Battle Flag took on an entirely different meaning in 1956 after the Brown versus the Board of Education ruling. It was put on the Georgia flag at that time to send a clear message to black people, and for no other reason than that, and I think Gov. Marvin Griffin was a SOB for doing it. I would never drive around with that on my car or wear a T-shirt with it on it because of that and I have more respect for myself and my fellow Georgians than to do something like that. And yes, there are hicks who don’t even know that the current GA flag was never “changed” it just went back to the pre-1956 design, yet they are bitching that their flag was “changed” like they think it always had the battle flag on it since forever. They are stupid and they don’t know their own damn history and I have no patience for it.
I could write pages about my hatred for Eugene Talmadge and John C. Calhoun. But I also know that history has to viewed in context and not immediately judged with our 21st century eyes. There are some real villains, and I will call that out faster than you can slap a tick, but I don’t wholly condemn or glorify anything without first taking a closer look.
My feeling and opinions come from the stacks of books I have read that consist of memoirs, diaries, letters and slave narratives. And since I am white woman, my main interest is the experience of the white and black women of the era, which is greatly diverse and indeed deserves a closer look.
So, having said that, as to statues and such…these romanticized generals on horses that were put up in the 20th century, yes it is true many of them were put up by people with less-than-noble intentions. If a community votes that they should be removed, then remove it. But it should be up to that community to decide, and with full knowledge of all the who, what, where, why and when.
However, it is important to make a distinction that not all of these monuments are of the same period or were put up for the same reasons. There is a BIG difference in some of these once you delve into the history and people who erected them, and it is my feeling this should be examined before just ripping shit down willy nilly without knowing the full backstory.
A romanticized statue of General Lee on Traveler (which even Lee himself said he did not want to be memorialized this way) that was put up in 1928 is not equal to a Soldier Memorial that was put up much earlier.
My case in point is the Confederate Soldiers Monument in Forsyth Park here in Savannah that dates from 1875, still the Reconstruction Era, which is unusual. These Soldier Memorials were usually put up by Women’s Societies (often with really long names) made up of War Widows, and in Georgia these were women who in many cases had lost pretty much every father, husband, brother and son in their family. There were very few men remaining in Georgia right after the war, and the ones who did come through it somewhat whole largely went out West to seek their fortune away from the broken economy.
These women, most of whom had suffered the direct onslaughts of Sherman’s Army (who left just as many black women and children to starve as they did white ones, btw) often did not even get a body back to bury and had no idea in some cases where their loved one even fell. So yes, they were bitter, destitute and violated. They were psychologically scarred. They had tasted defeat like no other group of civilians has since. Most went into mourning for the rest of their lives because it was the only way they could cope. Even Union soldiers occupying the area in he 1870s knew this. I remember reading a memoir where one wrote back home how important it was to “let the ladies be, let them grieve”. The reason this monument was “allowed” to go up so early, still during Reconstruction, was because it was recognized at the time that it was an important source of comfort and a coping mechanism for the ladies. They had a huge amount of mourning to do, and they needed a place to do it. Something literally concrete (or marble) to hold onto.
A testament to how serious this was taken, was that the women, so many of whom barely had enough to eat, and no men to provide for them, were able to raise money for it in the first place, but raise the money they did. And because their was no manpower in Georgia at the time to quarry the marble out of North Georgia, they ordered the marble quarried in Canada at even more expense and actually had it brought by SHIP to Savannah so the stone would not touch “Yankee soil”. That’s how serious they were about it. They were convicted, and they meant that shit, I am telling you!
Do I agree with all this? No, not really, but I didn’t live in those times and survive what they survived, and I think their story is every bit as important as anybody else’s. BUT, all in proper context. I don’t know how I would feel if I lost every man in my family, and been violated by an enemy soldier, but I know it would be some seriously strong emotion. All they had was each other for comfort, and even though I don’t agree with their romanticism of these deaths, I can understand they had no other outlet for their grief.
And besides, this was the height of the Victorian period, and romanticizing death was something everybody did, it was the popular trend of the time.
And just to make sure it is understood that this was a mourning piece, not a “Monument to White Supremacy” as is being tossed around, it originally had 2 female figures on it, shrouded in death shrouds. At some point some years later, somebody decided that it was too much of a downer, and it was too “Funerary” and it was then that the 2 female figures were removed and sent out to Laurel Grove cemetery (where they are today) and it was only then that the Confederate Soldier was put on top.
They have no plans in Savannah to remove this monument and I hope it stays that way because it is unique, it is the oldest and the biggest of its type, and it tells a far deeper story than most realize. The women who were starved and raped and traumatized by an invading army (they even stole and destroyed their clothes) deserve to have their whole story told as well. I am all for “adding to” and not removing things like this. I would even be very supportive of restoring the 2 female figures back so it is displayed at the widows intended. I think that could be a good compromise, a step in “deconsecrating” as the OP asked.
It should serve as a reminder that you don’t turn an army loose on women and children and old men to do as they wish. I can see the big picture of why Lincoln ordered Sherman to do it, but that doesn’t make it any less brutal and unworthy of remembrance. It is not as if the women had any say in whether or not to go to war, anyway.
For the ones that have guys in frills prancing on horses, put a cast iron slave underneath one of the hooves, their life being crushed out of them as the hoof sinks into their chest.
That would only work if the Neo-Confederates had any sense of shame.
What if we leave the statues of the men untouched but remove everything else around them - the horses, the pedestals, the glowing praises. Just leave the racists hanging there in the air, looking stupid with their buttocks ready for kicking?
We’d need something to suspend them with, of course.
Wow. Thank you for that history. I would also support restoring that monument.
As for some of the others. Has anyone suggested yarn bombing?