The Rightful Home For Confederate Statues
A recent article from NY Daily News, states that “Every American should feel the same way about the leaders of the Confederacy as Germans feel towards Hitler. The Confederacy was an act of treason against the United States of America, its Constitution and one of its greatest Presidents. But alas, there are still close to 700 Confederate monuments strewn across the South.”
Today, America continues to struggle with our history of slavery and those lingering racial tensions. Although segregation has been illegal for decades, racism still dominates many institutions within our society.
I grew up in Connecticut, and attended a school that I felt was diverse and accepting. My mom is also northern born and bred, but my dad is from a small town in rural Georgia, that had a much different lifestyle. Where he grew up, there was a much larger African American population and as a result, more racist related issues. I have always had a mix of these two backgrounds in my life and have always appreciated them. However, as I have grown up and started to learn about American history, I can now see just how fractured our nation’s culture is. On a recent trip to Virginia, I passed several huge confederate flags waving tall and proud. I have never really had Civil War monuments in my life at all, let alone anything to honor the losing side. Thinking about the flags, I realized that I had never really seen Civil War monuments, and I thought about just how divided this country could be when it came to the Civil War. People are so divided about this war, that some even continue to refer to it as “The War of Northern Aggression”. This controversial way to honor the Confederacy prompted me to think more about the presence of confederate and racist ideals in our country as a whole. I remembered chaos in Charlottesville that I had seen on the news over the past summer in response to the removal of confederate statues. At first glance, the issue seemed fairly clean cut because on the one hand, the statues were promoting the ideals of white supremacy, and on the other they are an important part of history that should be preserved. However, the more I looked into this issue, the more complex it became, and eventually neither taking them down or keeping them up made sense.
In the south, many relics concerning the confederate army still remain in public parks, school campuses, and other places today. Many people, including African Americans, other minority groups, and more liberal citizens, see these statues as an offensive reminder of white supremacy and the ideals of slavery that should no longer be associated with America, so they are therefore fighting for their removal. Even when there are obvious racial implications of a confederate statue, does that mean that it should be destroyed?
A common argument to keep the statues safe from destruction, is that they represent a cultural and impactful history. While these statues do hold historic value, many were built for more racist reasons than most perceive. According to a graphic from National Public Radio, statues with ties to the confederacy were put up much more rapidly during the 1920s, 1950s, and 1960s, long after the war was relevant in daily life. This rise in confederate representation was in response to the uproar in civil rights protesting of Jim Crow laws in the Twentieth Century. Unfortunately, this means that the intent of the monuments were to set a new daily reminder of the more oppressive views of the south during a time of racial unrest.
Overtime, the topic of the confederate army has been a painful subject that upsets both northerners and southerners alike. With the issues of statues, old feuds are being thrust into the spotlight again. Recent protests have been all over the news. They including rallies and violence between those who wish to remove and the statues due to the racist message that they pose, and those who want to preserve their history by keeping them standing. As the intensity of these rallies continues to rise, it is becoming more difficult to deny that these statues are yet another way that the complexity of racism is present in modern America. In an NPR article, an anti-statue protester said that “It’s bringing all the hatred back up.” The hatred that is being referred to is that same racial tension that is seeping into so many aspects of daily life.
This brings up the idea of honoring figures in general: does a statue of someone always mean that they had a positive impact or just a monumental one? In the United States, the most popular monuments include The Statue of Liberty, Washington Monument, Mount Rushmore, and Jefferson Memorial, which all attract millions of visitors a year. At first glance, these all seem to represent instrumental times or men in our history, and should therefore be honored. However, no one is perfect, even Thomas Jefferson. The Jefferson Memorial, which attracts 1.9 million visitors a year, is a famous memorial to honor his accomplishments including, the freedoms that he helped our country to earn. However, he also owned over 600 hundred slaves during his life time, and did not include slavery in the Declaration of Independence. Looking back now, we can recognize that keeping slavery was necessary at the time. When the Constitution was originally being ratified, the founding fathers knew that they could never get the southern states on board if the abolition of slavery was included. Unfortunately, at this time slavery was not even seen as a moral issue but a political one. In fact, many of the founding fathers owned slaves themselves. At this point, the south wanted slavery in order to increase their population and representation in Congress while the north wanted to limit their influence in the government. Therefore, men like Jefferson let the issue of slavery slide, and yet we still honor him for his many other accomplishments. If we’re willing to honor presidents who supported slavery, does this mean that someone’s effect on history is more important than their motives or the complexity of the time period?
While it is clear that they were and continue to be controversial figures, there is no denying that these confederate men played a tremendous part in shaping our nation. But the question remains, do they deserve to be recognized through these historical monuments? Many scoff at the idea of considering a confederate soldier to be a hero, and yet men like famous general Robert E. Lee still remain idolized today. In many ways, it depends on your personal definition of hero. From the outside, Lee fought for “the wrong side” and is therefore not worthy of these honors. However, is it possible that we should look at these men outside of the context of slavery? An article recently published in the Richmond Times points out that, “Slavery was more than just a Southern problem; it was an American problem.” Lee was a brilliant military mind who fought for his home state valiantly, and some historians even believe that he may have been anti-slavery on a personal level. Additionally, despite common misconceptions, the Civil War was not clear cut with abolitionists in the north and slave owners in the south; there was a mix across the whole country. Given that background, do these confederate soldiers deserve to be honored for pure military reasons, ignoring the implications of the actual battle? Many may argue that the men knew what they were fighting for was wrong, but it is incredibly difficult for someone alive today to understand just how much slavery influenced colonial American culture. These men simply fought for the cultural and social norm at the time. However, while they may have lived in a society where slavery was accepted and practiced, the American public no longer tolerates such ideas. Therefore, it seems unethical to have these men honored without needed historical context.
Again, this brings up the implications of honoring historical figures as a whole. What is more important: representing influential people who changed our country, or making sure that only the most moral people are given this honor? In the case of Charlottesville, The University of Virginia held discussions and a vote regarding their statue, which was ultimately removed. A city council member summarized the removal by saying, “I am convinced that this council is unanimous in feeling that these statues of fallen rebel commanders do not represent our interpretation of history or the way we should treat our neighbors”. She also cited that there may be alternative ways to honor these men.
Given the many intricacies that go into the intent and subject of the statues, perhaps we should be looking towards an alternative route. In a recent interview by reporters at 60 Minutes, historian Julian Hayter brought a new idea to the table, “recontextualization”. Hayter said, “ I think that the statues should stay with a — footnote of epic proportions.” By footnote, he means adding plaques, signs, or smaller monuments around the original statues to add, “A more enriching story about American history.” These footnotes would be a way to give passing citizens a more complete picture. They could outline who the soldiers were and what they fought for. Additionally, they could acknowledge the deeper complexity of the time and highlight how deeply rooted slavery was for many historical figures. Most importantly, they could explain when they were built and why. This would establish a more clear and widely known connection between confederate statues and the Civil Rights movement. Overall, these signs could allow the statues to stay where they are, but more accurately represent their story. This would not only allow them to continue to represent the culture that many believe deserves to still stand, but it can also serve as an example of the struggles that African Americans faced during the days of Jim Crow.
As a nation, we continually struggle to ease racial tensions. These statues have struck a particularly sensitive chord, as it also brings back old feelings of north and south. We have continued to debate this, and it has often ended in violence, chaos, and further hate. If the American people cannot come to a middle ground in something like statues, how will we be able to continue towards equality? We as a country need to learn from our past mistakes, not keep them tucked in the shadows. Ever since our founding, we have fought to remove statues that represent things that we would rather not be reminded of. These relics include those of King George, Christopher Columbus, and now Lee. By taking these down, we not only get rid of the oppressive ideas that they represent, but we are also getting rid of the ability to add further description to them. Columbus statues could still stand, but also acknowledge the struggles faced by the native population by adding a plaque or additional information to the monument. Therefore, Confederate statues could exist with similar footnotes. In order to learn and spark needed conversation about our controversial history, we cannot take these statues out of the public eye, but rather allow them to stand with the entire story represented. By letting our hatred towards these figures blind us, we are taking down an opportunity to show all sides of the issue. It is important to keep these statues where they are so that everyone can get the full effect of what they stand for and why.
During times where inequality is heavily debated, citizens tend to have emotional ties to the issues. Unfortunately, we can let these emotions cloud our judgements and allow us to make rash decisions. In order to allow these statues to make the most educationally beneficial impact possible, we as a nation need to step back from these violent protests and realize the opportunity that we have to preserve history for future learning. By applying “recontextualization” to confederate monuments, we can not only keep them in their original places, but add an additional layer of significance to their existence that will work to promote positive change in the community.
