Yes, I’ve been quiet for a bit, but… I’m more of a mind to chat when there is something to actually chat about…
I’ve recently taken notice of the $125,000 Joseph E. Johnston statue at Bentonville and… uhhhhhh… I think it detracts more than adds to Bentonville. To each his own, but really…
First, it’s certainly not the quality likeness found in the 1912 statue in Dalton, Georgia; second, from what I have seen, I think there are some contemporary agenda-driven reasons why it is there and they don’t so much focus on Johnston or the battle as much as they do on the hiccups in Civil War memory (“Defender of the Southland to the End”… indeed! Certainly, the Confederacy, but…); third, wouldn’t that money do more good for other Civil War era “living” items? Which leads me to four… it just doesn’t “tickle my innards.” Now, if you were to take the remnants of what is “living” at Civil War battlefields… the land, the monuments that were there when the veterans grouped around them, and (whether at the nearby museum or elsewhere) the flags… all that is worthy of the money. That stuff sends chills up and down my spine and gives me an opportunity to perform some sort of “breach of time” and put me a little closer to that which tends to drive my historical interests. Flags are in need of preservation, hallowed ground needs to be preserved, and the monuments that were present when the veterans were around need care. Bottom line… it’s silly how much money is being soaked into these contemporary monuments when that money could go a really long way in taking care of the places and things that offer us virtual portals in time.
As Forrest Gump would say… “that’s all I have to say about that.” Well… maybe…
Harry Smeltzer
March 24, 2010
All this has led me to wonder: what are monuments for? Who are they for? What do they do? What SHOULD they do? Who should decide what they SHOULD do? Frankly, most of what is referred to as “memory” studies, even ones that target monumentation, don’t do a good job of explaining this, as I think they all start with some sort of inate but unexpressed notion of SHOULD. For instance, what about this issuance of an MOH for Alonzo Cushing? MOHs were not awarded posthumously back then. who is being honored here? A guy who’s been dead for 147 years, or a group of people who have pushed for the medal?
Robert Moore
March 24, 2010
That’s a good point, Harry. In the past, I think this has been mentioned in this blog and others… who are these monuments really for? If it is part of telling the story and done tastefully and in a neutral way, then ok, but who is there to keep measures on the neutrality? The way I see it, the Johnston monument side-stepped official procedures and placed it in a non-state park location to serve an agenda first and foremost… history (albeit poorly conveyed) was a way to force that agenda on the public. There is no service to history in it… and again, why $125,000 for one monument when that money could have done so much more?
Then you have McGowan’s Brigade monument that was dedicated this past year. Nice to see the brigade honored… and it’s not disturbing to the eyes like the Johnston statue… but for $30,000 what other ways could this money have greater impact on telling the story of the unit and protecting the ground on which they served?
Frankly, I’m disappointed that there is no monument to Cole’s Cavalry on any field, ANYWHERE. They get passing mention on different Civil War Trails markers or Dept. of Hist. Resources signs, but no monument. Now, I’d love to get behind something to honor them, but at the same time, why? I’d like to see them honored by a monument, but isn’t protecting the battlefields they fought on, and providing lower cost interpretive signs just as effective… and probably with a greater impact? Plus, is there really any charm in monuments erected for the CW in recent times? I think that charm isn’t there, but is there with those monuments that the vets put up and were present at on different occasions.
On another note, just a few years ago, Meigs was honored with a simple headstone-like (about 5′ or so tall) monument here in the Valley, marking the spot where he fell (not much different than the one for Charles Russell Lowell at Middletown, near the Cedar Creek battlefield). It tells a story, but I don’t see an agenda behind it, other than to mark the spot where the guy fell, honor him rather modestly, and serve as an additional element in telling part of the Valley’s history in the ’64 campaign… plus there are two Civil War Trails markers at the site to complement the story.
Certainly, the whole thing is worth lengthy discussion.
Robert Moore
March 24, 2010
Here’s another thought too… if the veterans didn’t get behind a monument to recognize their own unit, then who are we to do so? Would they be more interested in us preserving the ground where they shed blood… and flags that they fought under… and us taking care of the monuments that they put up? Knowing what I do about the cost to restore monuments, we’ve got our hands full without engaging in a task to create more monuments.
Harry Smeltzer
March 24, 2010
EXACTLY! A few years ago a fellow named Weeks (I think) who was tragically killed in a freak accident shortly after its release wrote a book about memory and Gettysburg. In it he raised an interesting point that makes a lot of folks uncomfortable when I mention it. He noted that the destruction of the “eyesore” tower at Gettysburg was attended by hundreds of reenactors, and wondered what battle veterans, for whom the first towers were erected on the field, would feel about grown men “dressing up” like them and tearing down the tower. I always get a creepy feeling when reenactors say they are “honoring” these fellows by trying to look like they may have looked for a brief period of their lives. I see some educational value, but “honor”? I don’t get it, and I never will. I accept that.
Robert Moore
March 24, 2010
Right, I get the potential for educational value (if done well), but I don’t see how it really “honors” them by peeing on buttons to make them look authentic (just as an example). LOL!
Richard
March 30, 2010
I have to agree with the comments on this blog regarding the monument at Bentonville. When I saw the post at CWMemory regarding the statue I was just 25 miles away in Clinton and decided to swing by and take photos. The face of the statue did not look right to me and I was amazed that it cost over $100,000. You will notice it when you visit the battlefield. I prefer the momnuments placed during the life of the actual soldiers although I have to admit I would like to see a monument to the men hanged at kinston. Something big and gaudy like the monument in Salisbury. LOL http://www.rrphillips.com/Confederate_Memorials/web/Rowan_County_NC/index.htm
I know the families of these men did not have the money to erect a monument and would have not been allowed to even if they had the resources.
Craig Swain
March 24, 2010
Last year I attended nine marker or monument unveiling ceremonies. Yes, I’m hooked on the thrill of getting a “new” marker to enter into the database. Somewhat like saying “First” on a comment board. And often the organizations contact me so as to get their stuff on the internet. Beside the tally and “first” honors, I’ll admit to taking sport just observing and listening to the folks who are involved with these efforts.
Groups that place markers (say within a state system or the CW Trails system) tend to be people that chat about preservation opportunities; or want to relate some additional background information about the site or event in the spotlight. In many cases I get the impression the organizers want the marker to be a step along the way toward some larger goal – be that preservation or more markers (or to attract tourist dollars).
Groups that place memorials tend to be a different sort. Aside from the formal presentations where speakers discuss the event, person, or persons, there doesn’t seem to be a lot of “history” in the air. Casual sidebar conversations cover things like organization politics (who’s running for lodge chairman, etc.), or pontifications about the right to display flags.
I won’t say which memorial it was, but one unveiling I attended last year practically drove me to Hulk like rage. I had to excuse myself before my anger came through. The program featured some rather credible, or dare I say impeccable, speakers. I was really looking forward to it. But when the colors were presented, there was one flag very noticeably absent. Perhaps that is acceptable to some. Not to me. I don’t care what your ancestors fought to defend.
Robert Moore
March 25, 2010
I agree, Craig. A presentation such as the one you mention, with a formal presentation of colors, should not leave out our National colors.
Larry Freiheit
April 10, 2010
Mr. Moore,
I have a copy of Amy L. Fleagle’s 2002 thesis, “A History of Cole’s Cavalry: The First Maryland Potomac Home Brigade” from Shippensburg. Actual text about the regiment is 109 type-written pages with another 40 pages for intro, roster, biblio, and Shell’s “A-Fightin’ with Cole” from Newcomer, 162-5. I have it on ILL and will send it back this week having made copies of much of it.
At first glance, I can make use of some from it but the escape from HF section does not add much to what I already have. Overall though, it looks like she did a good job of researching the unit.
Larry Freiheit
Robert Moore
April 10, 2010
Thanks, Larry! I’ll contact you offline about it. Can’t wait to see what is in the thesis.