One of the arguments I’ve read over the last week or two, is about the fight over monuments. Wait, now… let me be clear. It’s this part of that discussion…
Does encouraging discussion of monument removal open a forum that encourages monument removal. Does it, perhaps, even increase the probability that monuments WILL BE removed?
The Confederate monument in Alexandria, Virginia is one of those currently in the news. Close-up from a vintage postcard.
First, I need to say, it’s not that these discussions and/or suggestions of Confederate monument… or… Confederate iconography… wait, wait… slave-holder connected iconography-removal haven’t happened before (of course, I’m just providing links to a few recent examples in the greater discussion). Alright, we can see where the slippery slope can lead, so let’s focus, for now, on just Confederate iconography.
Discussions on removing Confederate iconography have happened before, and some have brought about vigorous discussions, but, as a whole, they haven’t nearly reached the current level of discussion. We’ve never seen so much talk about removing so much Confederate iconography at one time.
Certainly, I see how some see the suggestion to encourage discussion as distressing… and why they wish to avoid that discussion. I’m one who believes that avoidance isn’t the best means of facing a problem, but I also understand reasons for concern. Considering how the recent movement gained momentum, and much of the conversation that it generated (much of it actually being disconnected from the incident that sparked it all, and/or heavily filled with stereotypes and generalizations), I’d say there’s ample reason for concern. I’ve seen plenty… plenty… a scarily large abundance, in fact… of the absurd… from how one extreme claims that secession had nothing to do with slavery, and how the other extreme looks at ALL antebellum Southerners as whip-cracking, racists. I am not exaggerating, and find both hugely unsettling when I consider the failure of the education process (and this is not necessarily limited to school-based education) that brought them to these conclusions (and others).
In a more perfect world, in which civil, thoughtful, educated discussion might occur, certainly, these discussions would be an opportunity for enlightenment, and any action that would follow might be akin to a true democratic people’s movement envisioned by someone like Thomas Jefferson (yes, I know… oh irony of ironies that I bring him up in this discussion). Problem is… this isn’t the reality. The reality is that it is very messy, and whether some will actually learn or not, from the discussion, is debatable.
Whether we agree or disagree with whether these discussions should take place… it really doesn’t matter as we cannot have a hand in all areas… either for or against. I suspect there might be further changes* apart from removing Confederate flags from public spaces… and no changes at all in other areas.
No matter; the point is that the focus is on discussion, and as discussion about various monuments really is a matter for individual localities to resolve…
In our discussions, to find enlightenment within these localities… at the grass roots level, especially in order for locals to better relate, and in order to us to come to terms with our past, of course, let’s consider why there is a monument in that community in the first place. If it was a community initiative to participate as part of the Southern Confederacy, there must also be a discussion about what it meant for those in those localities to take part… and not take part… and take part only when they were told to take part… and avoid taking part… and even when they decided to take part on the other side of the argument. Again, however, reality is, the discussion probably won’t get that deep. It will, or at least it should be, about why people in that community decided to go to war… and with the understanding that it was sometimes for different reasons.
As we come to the seemingly peculiar scenarios behind why men in different communities did pick up a musket… yes, the debate about Confederate iconography can be very much about individual soldiers. In fact, the complicated story behind my home county’s Confederate monuments make this clear.
Despite what some may think… this is the reality. This is where it matters when we consider the monuments in our Southern county seats.
As we focus on this iconography within localities, sure… we can discuss why there was a war, beginning with South Carolina and the lower South… and then, when we look at the monuments within respective communities, we can begin to grasp what these monuments meant to locals… not only what they meant to them after the war, but what the war meant to the soldiers of that community as they donned gray and butternut. No matter how much some wish to focus on the over-arching meaning… that success of the Confederate government would mean the preservation of slavery (and yes, even this gets complicated)… the discussion of monuments cannot selectively evade or ignore a discussion about the people within local communities and what war meant to them.
*I’ve read some speculation about what may contribute to change in different areas. Based on those readings, I suspect changes in demographics may play a factor in some situations, but won’t necessarily be the only factor in which we see calls for removal of Confederate iconography. While I don’t presume to know all the reasons that might be at play in different areas, it would be interesting to see graphs showing shifts in demographics and what party politics dominates in the areas in which changes actually come about.
Cenantua's Blog 
Richard Williams
July 20, 2015
Another good post Robert. But what many who seem so eager to discuss the removal of Confederate monuments are not discussing is why the discussion should stop with Confederate monuments. For instance, why wouldn’t Sherman’s monument be in the mix?
“Just as with the Southerners, he destroyed the Indians’ will to fight by not only killing their soldiers, but also destroying the resources they needed to survive. While Sherman believed that Native Americans stood in the way of progress and would probably need to be exterminated, he spoke out forcefully against corrupt government agents who dealt unfairly with Indians on reservations.” Source: http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/americanexperience/features/biography/grant-sherman/
And we know the Jefferson monument in DC has already been mentioned as a possible target – at some point. Even Abraham Lincoln cannot stand the scrutiny of the moral purists.
Robert Moore
July 20, 2015
I agree on the whole “slippery slope” that this leads to, but, if we’re only talking Confederate iconography right now… when considering where that iconography is located, it must be the responsibility of locals to make decisions. As such, how can we limit discussion to why there was a war in the first place? Being responsible, we have to grasp the meaning of why people in the respective localities went to war. The individual soldier is very much a part of that.
Richard Williams
July 20, 2015
“The individual soldier is very much a part of that.”
Most definitely. And the reasons are as varied then as they are now.
Cotton Boll Conspiracy
July 21, 2015
Robert, one thing that I think is often lost upon many today is the toll the war took on communities in both the North and South. In South Carolina, for example, one of every four white males between the ages of 16 and 45 did not return. That doesn’t even account for the wounded and those who suffered what we would term today as PTSD. This is a staggering total, and the figures were nearly as high in many other states in both regions.
In the South, many of the memorials that exist are to soldiers and were erected as means to not only remember the dead, but to enable family and friends to grieve for those lost. In Newberry County, SC, which I am most familiar with, more than 500 men were killed in a county which had an 1860 population of just under 21,000. Given that there were about 13,700 slaves in the county and if you assume that the white population was evenly divided between the sexes, that represents a death rate of close to 14 percent for all males, regardless of age.
Given the number of widows and orphans, along with siblings and parents who lost family, and the hard times that followed the war, it would have been unnatural for survivors to have not erected memorials and monuments to the Confederate soldier. Even monuments erected, say, 50 years after war are a testament to loss in many cases, as they were likely funded at least in part by the sons and daughters of men killed during war, who had grown up without fathers.
Robert Moore
July 21, 2015
Absolutely, CBC. The way we look at these monuments has meaning beyond that suggested by some who wish to limit our interpretation. In fact, the monuments worked as fitting substitutes to going to the battlefields themselves, allowing a local spot upon which to reflect and remember the dead. Today being the 154th anniversary of First Manassas, I think about how the Confederate veterans met in my home county, typically for their summer picnic, on July 21… near their monument. You will note the link I provided to one of my old blog posts, within this post… it directs folks to the monuments in Page County, Virginia. The second monument, erected specifically for the local soldiers, was within site of the park in which they annually met. Considering the high casualty rate of one of the companies from Page County (in fact, the highest of all of the battles in the war for all of the companies formed in the county), on July 21, 1861, one cannot tell me that this monument didn’t serve as an instrument of mourning. Incidentally, a third great grand uncle of mine was among the dead of that day.
Also, speaking of widows and orphans, I see that the Confederate Women’s Monument, in Raleigh, NC, was vandalized last night. “Sad” doesn’t begin to describe my feelings. I saw a snide comment from someone that he “liked the monument because it actually shows the white supremacist BS these represent being passed along.” I think this matches the profile of the radical “visionaries” I elude to in my post, above. To each his own, I suppose. People are free to read into things as they see fit (well, in theory, at least… current events cause reason to actually doubt that when it comes to those who look upon Confederate iconography with anything other than disgust). For me, however, when I see the monument in Raleigh, I consider it beyond its original intent. I see it more as a monument to Southern widows and children of the war… some who may have seen husbands, fathers, and other families march off, either willing, uncertain, or unwilling to fight. While the legacy of the Lost Cause suggested original meaning, I think (at least some of us) have advanced our knowledge enough to know the expanded meaning in iconography to Confederate widows and the children so many left behind. People like you and I are able to appreciate the monument and see new meaning. I think too many are dismissive of that.
Richard Williams
July 21, 2015
“some who wish to limit our interpretation.”
That is precisely what some are attempting to do, both with the CBF and monuments. It’s rather shallow and sophomoric, in my opinion. It ignores the nuances and complications of history.
Many of us can relate the loss to our families (distant though they may be) as a result of a son or father’s service. My widowed great-great grandmother who was forced to sell a prosperous farm in Amherst and move to Rockbridge County and live on a “farm” that was unproductive at best – very rocky soil and near impossible to cultivate in the mountains. The anecdotal stories are endless.
“While the legacy of the Lost Cause suggested original meaning, I think (at least some of us) have advanced our knowledge enough to know the expanded meaning in iconography to Confederate widows and the children so many left behind. People like you and I are able to appreciate the monument and see new meaning. I think too many are dismissive of that.”
Again, you are precisely correct. And as I opined earlier, I believe the dismissive aspect is fueled by the overall agenda.
Robert Moore
July 21, 2015
I’m certain some set out to dehumanize Confederates. Makes it all that more easy to dismantle. That’s probably why I look more to identifying the humanity in each person. I never can say it enough… my favorite paths in history are made from the ground up.
Richard Williams
July 21, 2015
Great points CBC.
Cotton Boll Conspiracy
July 21, 2015
Thank you, Richard. Robert has done a really nice job of delving below the surface and examining topics that needs to be looked at, as have you on your blog.
Robert Moore
July 21, 2015
Speaking of that distant uncle, CBC, I thought I’d share the post in which I personalized my Sesquicentennial experience at Manassas, four years ago today. You can see the post, here.
Cotton Boll Conspiracy
July 21, 2015
Thank you, Robert, for pointing me to your post from 2011. I had the chance to walk Manassas for the first time last year and it was a moving experience. I don’t know about you, but I tend to like to visit many of the more crucial historical sites, such as battlefields, by myself. No matter who won, or how much bravery was demonstrated, or what they outcome, there is always so much to reflect on.
Of course, the loss of life and so many of the other things you touched on come to the forefront when you visit a battlefield, and words can be difficult to come by.
We tend to forget today that easy travel is a relatively modern experience, and for many who survived the Civil War and their families, the closest they could usually get to paying their respects was either the grave of a loved one – if their remains had made it home – or the memorial in the town square.
Robert Moore
July 21, 2015
Indeed, very true.
“I don’t know about you, but I tend to like to visit many of the more crucial historical sites, such as battlefields, by myself.”
Usually by myself, though my oldest daughter enjoys historic sites as much as I do and usually accompanies me. Neither of us like it when the sites are crowded. Drowns out those more special experiences, of reflection, so often had in such places.
Beverly Osteen Hill
July 27, 2015
I have so enjoyed your posts. I am having a hard time understanding this new “civil rights” controversy. I agreed to the removal of the flag from the Columbia Capital if it insulted or hurt others. However, I am concerned about the movement to totally eradicate anything that is associated with “the South”. There was much loss on both sides of that war. Clearly the “South” suffered greatly. We should honor our ancestors who chose to stand up for what they believed in. However, it is 2015 and shouldn’t we move one? “Those who do not learn from history are destined to repeat it.”