As I continue to explore “The Rational Case for Removing Confederate Monuments,” a key question has arisen: Can we add context to Confederate monuments and keep them in place? [Note: Also see my post: Do we ‘erase history’ by removing confederate monuments?]
Most of the existing Confederate monuments (statues, as well as school, army base, and street names) remain standing in the locations in which they were placed over the last century. A small number have been removed, although removals are still occurring as local and state communities grapple with the question. A tiny number were pulled down during the racial justice protests in 2020. Little has been done to the remaining monuments, but there have been calls to leave them in place and add additional context.
A good illustration of the difficulties of adding context comes from a statue of Abraham Lincoln that had been targeted for forcible removal during the summer of 2020. The Emancipation Memorial, also called the Freedman’s Memorial, is not a Confederate statue. It was erected as a commemoration of Lincoln’s Emancipation Proclamation and freedom for enslaved African Americans. The funds for the statue were raised entirely from freed slaves and Frederick Douglass gave the keynote address at its dedication in 1876. The black male figure is modeled after a specific freed slave named Archer Alexander. This history would seem to make the statue immune to attack. However, the design includes a standing Lincoln with a crouched African American man breaking his chains and apparently rising to freedom. This “superior” positioning of a white male versus “inferior” positioning of a black male was controversial from the beginning (the funders had no say in the statue design). In our current time, the third time period reflected by all statues, many believe the design to be inappropriate. Historians and the public alike have debated what to do with the statue, if anything.
As with Confederate statues, some have suggested that the Emancipation Memorial can be augmented with additional context. So what context might be added?
Within a week after dedicating the Emancipation Memorial, Frederick Douglass expressed in a newspaper advertisement that the design had some problematic elements. He suggested that additional bronze figures might be added around the statue to complement, and more fully contextualize, the main Lincoln/Alexander artwork. Nothing was done at the time and today there is a legal problem in doing so. The statue is owned and maintained by the National Park Service, which is barred by law from removing – or adding – any additional statues. Given today’s congressional trend toward inaction, the idea of Congress passing a law to allow additional figures seems remote. [DC delegate Eleanor Holmes Norton introduced a bill in the summer of 2020 to have the Emancipation Memorial removed, but as of this writing no further action has occurred.]
Forgetting this logistical roadblock, historians and the public have offered various options for adding statues to provide a fuller picture. They include turning the statue again so that the Archer Alexander figure is looking across the park to the Mary McLeod Bethune statue. [The entire Emancipation Memorial statue had been turned 180 degrees in the 1970s to face the newly installed Bethune statue; Bethune was a black educator and civil rights activist] Others have suggested statues of Frederick Douglass, Sojourner Truth, and/or Harriet Tubman be added. There is also a suggestion that the statue be replaced by one featuring Lincoln and Douglass standing together, eye-to-eye, shaking hands, which would show them as equal statesmen. As noted, however, the idea of adding statuary seems a losing battle on NPS land.
Another suggestion is to add signage with additional context. Again, the Emancipation Memorial shows the difficulty and apparent ineffectiveness of this option. During two “teach-ins” conducted in the summer of 2020 at the Emancipation Memorial, including one where protest activists expressed their contempt for the statue and attempted to arouse the gathered crowd to pull it down, many attendees said they were unaware of the history noted above (Funding by former slaves, Frederick Douglass dedication, Archer Alexander figure). And yet, the Memorial itself contains a large (3 foot x 5 foot) plaque on the side of the pedestal explaining the funding process, including that Charlotte Scott, a former slave, had contributed the first $5. People don’t read, or don’t remember, plaques. Howard University Lincoln scholar Edna Greene Medford recently noted that statues are built to be seen, not read. Given historical patterns, virtually no one would see, or retain, any additional context signage added to existing monuments.
Costs and logistics would also seem to be prohibitive. Any additional context signage would have to be permanent; paper or temporary billboard signage wouldn’t last long enough to be meaningful. This means that additional context would need to be included on permanent, probably bronze, plaques installed on or near the statues. It’s unclear that NPS limitations would allow even this change. Bronze (or marble or any other permanent material) is expensive. The cost and time to design, fund, get permissions, and build permanent addendums would require considerable time. It seems unlikely that 99% of existing monuments would ever see additional permanent contextual elements added.
When it comes to Confederate monuments the difficulties of context become even more acute. What additional context could be added to a statue of Nathan Bedford Forrest, for example? As I noted in response to a comment on the initial Confederate Monument post, Nathan Bedford Forrest’s historical context would obviously have to include his Confederate Army service, as well as his roles in the murders of black Union troops (USCT) at Ft. Pillow and elsewhere, as well as his role as grand dragon of the KKK. In all cases, the full story would need to be told. Would those wanting to preserve Confederate heritage want that story? Robert E. Lee’s story might include his service in the United States Army prior to rejecting the Union and fighting for the Confederacy to protect and expand slavery. His time after the war as president of Washington College (renamed Washington and Lee after his death) might be relevant if any of his actions were relevant to his standing. Similarly, Jefferson Davis forsook his United States citizenship and his prior service as U.S. Secretary of War and U.S. Senator to become president of the Confederacy with the swore belief in white supremacy, slavery, and rejection of the U.S. Constitution. Again, what additional context would improve the historical position of Confederate leaders and generals in today’s society?
As we can see, there are significant roadblocks to adding context to Confederate monuments, both logistical and textual content.
The discussion above is primarily focused on adding contexts to statues in situ, that is where the statues are currently placed in public areas. Two other options have been suggested: One, to move statues into museums where context would be easier to add (e.g., they wouldn’t need to be as durable); the other is to move statues to battlefield locations or to special parks. I’ll address both of these ideas in future posts.
A reminder that this is a continuing series of posts addressing rational discussion of the fate of Confederate monuments. The initial post is: The Rational Case for Removing Confederate Monuments. This and follow up posts are appended at the end of that post.
[Emancipation Memorial photo credit: David J. Kent; Confederate monument photo source: Confederate Statues Come Down Around U.S., But Not Everywhere : NPR]
David J. Kent is an avid traveler, scientist, and Abraham Lincoln historian. He is the author of Lincoln: The Man Who Saved America, Tesla: The Wizard of Electricity and Edison: The Inventor of the Modern World as well as two specialty e-books: Nikola Tesla: Renewable Energy Ahead of Its Time and Abraham Lincoln and Nikola Tesla: Connected by Fate.
Check out my Goodreads author page. While you’re at it, “Like” my Facebook author page for more updates!
As you well know, I am opposed to the removal, in any way of the Confederate or other historical statues or monuments. It is your premise, directly, to which I am opposed, to wit the question “…can we add context…” The better question would be: ‘…do we have the right to remove, change, or ignore context as implied by the work?” The answer, emphatically, is we do not. The most instructive and constructive protocol is to study and learn from the context in which or for which the work was created. Although they may also serve to memorialize a person or event, as the years roll on their educational purpose increases and the memories recede. Therefor, I am asking you to consider a major paradigm shift before you continue with your destructive efforts. Remember also that we are all sinners, so that no man or woman can achieve salvation without repentance. For most of us, we take part in a a Christian journey, in which we try to improve our personal qualities in order to be more like our Lord, Jesus. This entails repenting of the many mistakes and poor choices we make and from that experience, learning the right way to live and love others. This is precisely what most of our ancestors practiced. In their context, not ours, they should be recognized for both good and bad they accomplished in their lives and as guides for ours. Learning what to do in life is strongly influenced by learning what not to do. In short I am asking you to study and adopt the principle of contextualization, a concept which is alarmingly absent amongst many historians, amateur and professional.
Thanks for the thoughtful comment, as usual, Scott. I think the crux of your comment is that we shouldn’t ignore the context of Confederate (and other) monuments. I totally agree. In fact, that’s the view presented in the first post of this series, i.e., “The Rational Case for Removing Confederate Monuments,” as well as the second post, “Do We Erase History by Removing Confederate Monuments.” We need to understand the context of the time period being depicted, the motivations and timing of those who erected the statues (or named schools, etc.), and our current day interpretation of the above.
So the question becomes, what does that context tell us. Again, I would point to what I’ve written in these first three posts.
The other point that you make is that we can learn from our mistakes and our history. Again, I wholeheartedly agree. We can, and must, learn from things we did right historically, and we can learn from things we did wrong. So the question becomes, how best do we learn from this? Do we learn from monuments to Confederate leaders and generals, including the ones like Forrest who reflect all this is bad about that time? Or do we best learn in some other way? More specifically, what can we learn from Confederate monuments that stand in the public square (opting out, for the time being, those that stand in battlefields and cemeteries like at Gettysburg)?
As I noted in the previous post (“Erase History?”), the monuments themselves create a false history. Do we learn from the false history presented? I’m not sure the answer is obvious. We certainly could if we had additional context presented (but this post argues why adding context is difficult). We could also learn if we used the monument as a focal point for teaching its history and the history of the Confederacy and post-Civil War eras up to the present day. That’s a big chore if we want to reach more than a few people at a time. Meanwhile, most people simply walk by statues and assume that they are honoring the person being depicted. Which gets us back to whether we should be honoring them or not.
A corollary to this last point is your comment that Confederate leaders “should be recognized for both good and bad they accomplished in their lives and as guides for ours.” That’s probably a good topic for a full future post. For example, let’s assume Robert E. Lee’s time as president of Washington College (later renamed Washington and Lee in his honor) will be considered something good worthy of recognition (I’m assuming most people would agree with this). Does that atone for his previous slaveholding status, or his time as general in the Confederacy, or his rejection of the U.S. Constitution and citizenship? I don’t know the answer to that. More importantly, even if we believe his “good” life atones for his “bad” life, does that warrant a statue of him in a Confederate general’s uniform riding a horse into battle, which would obviously be commemorating that part of his life, not the civilian presidency of a post-war college. The same question could be asked of every person depicted in statuary, whether Confederate or not. [As this post notes, Lincoln’s Emancipation Memorial statue is also deemed controversial.]
Thanks for giving me so much to think about.
Perhaps I’m seeing this from an Eastern/Western cultural perspective. In the West, we tend to fix (as in harden) a perspective through the narratives of characters. In the East, characters are simply along for the ride, and the narrative is the story itself. I’ve written before in here about why this makes so much Eastern literature and film-making inaccessible to the Western aesthetic, and vice-versa.
Likewise, this seems to extend into our portrayals of history. In the West, we plaster the faces of the people who represent our history onto everything from our money to the those statues. In Eastern cultures, the stories are represented more directly… Buddhas, kami, or people-in-action. Compare the image on the obverse of two most circulated banknotes, US $20 (Andrew Jackson) to that of a Taiwanese NT$1000 (students studying the world in which they live).
That’s not to say that there are no images of individuals in Eastern cultures, but it’s understood that they’re aberrations in the promotion of an agenda… effectively, “propaganda”. Almost no one in an Asian culture would look at an image of some “great leader”, whether Mao or Chiang Kai-shek, and see anything more than an attempt to elevate a particular political or state structure through the promotion of a cult-of-personality.
The problem with those monuments to people representing our history is consequently that they are all eventually rendered obsolete by interpretation outside of the context of the times and values in which they were placed. The stories they tell become incomprehensible, and it’s always possible to at some point find something objectionable due to changes in values, perspectives or just personal sensitivities.
I don’t know the answer for Americans. We have enshrined our history in the deified images of a few momentary people rather than in the stories told by their times. Adding historical context seems like a good idea, but that also means that we then tell only those narratives that fit the images. What values and perspectives, or even politics will be applied to that interpretation? How do we remain objective when the whole point of such monuments is to depict American history through something intended to promote a particular perspective at a particular moment in time? And if our intent is merely to interpret them according to the values we wish to promote in our present time, then they are rendered merely as more current propaganda.
Excellent points and insights (as always). It’s interesting to see the difference between eastern and western (especially US) narrative styles. We do tend to create icons to represent every aspect of our history (Lincoln, Edison, FDR, General Patton, Nixon, etc.) rather than a more comprehensive understanding of the story the time period itself tells. Maybe we’re just incapable of understanding anything more than bumper sticker (modern = sound bite) twitterings.
The problem of differing, and changing, perspectives was addressed at least partially in the first post of this series (“Rational Case…”). Not covered is the fact that virtually all American history is told from the white male perspective. “Women’s studies” and “Black studies” etc tend to carve out niches that are almost treated independent of the rest of what was happening around them, as if they were in a bubble. We would be better served by integrating all perspectives into one coherent story line, which is of course what white male dominated society doesn’t want to do because it threatens our perceived superiority over all that we can see (which reminds me of Yertle the Turtle, a kids book from way back that I think is social commentary on Hitler the way Animal Farm was on communism). [Sorry for the digression]
I’ll have to think about your last sentence. I don’t think many want to create a new propaganda scheme. Ideally (at least for me), we would want to capture the historical realities, which could then be integrated in present interpretations. Whether we do this by honoring individual icons (like Lincoln) through statues or through more conceptual memories (like the “lynching museum” in Alabama), or maybe by skipping monuments and putting our efforts into better, more comprehensive, multi-perspective teaching methods, I don’t know. Something for further thought and discussion.
Only God can judge your repentance or atonement – that is not a human privilege regarding sin. Or are you willing to toss the first stone? These creations do not represent “false” history. They are symbolic of the good and bad that our ancestors did. Yes, in cultural context, there are differences in societal portrayals, much of it related to mythical vs. actual events and efforts.
The real crux of my position regarding the possible removal of historical statues and monuments is best summarized in two concepts: contextualization and education however it is achieved – by view, by description, and hopefully by study). Other methods of education (catering to the learning styles of individuals) are at least equally effective and greatly welcomed.
One more thing: these works, as I have alluded to, must also be regarded and valued as works of art, again some “good” and some “bad,” depending upon individual taste. That introduces another perspective, does it not?
Statues, as well as school namings, were erected by men and women for a human purpose. As my first post noted, each period of time – and the motivations of the men and women of that time – are reflected in each statue (Confederate or otherwise). In all three time periods there are rational reasons why we can consider Confederate statues to be inappropriate. Obviously, not everyone agrees the statues should be removed; the idea is to establish a dialogue in which rational people can discuss various views, which is why this continuing series of posts has, and will, try to address the different viewpoints and rationales offered for non-removal.
As already noted, I agree that contextualization and education is necessary. This current post addresses means, and difficulties, of contextualization. Education is a topic I’ll cover in a future post, in addition to what I’ve said in the first three posts and comment responses. I’m eager to hear your thoughts on how the statues can be used as educational tools, or other educational tools with or without the statues.
it is true that all statues represent a work of art in themselves, which is certainly one consideration offered to support them remaining standing. I plan to address this point in more detail in a future post.
Thanks again for your input and I look forward to hearing your views on educational merit.
Can you, in fact, put these statues in context without hardening the attitudes of those who use them to further their own agenda? As you point out, these men represent different things to different people. And to those who espouse the lost cause, anything that is done to put these statues in the actual context will be seen as another attempt to erase their heritage. The rise of the lost cause and of trumpism are two sides of the same coin, and show how far people will go to not believe reality if it doesn’t agree with what they want to believe. Will adding anything to these statues bring anything but more division? Is it possible to enlighten those who do not wish to be enlightened?
You make some good points. Would those that want to keep Confederate statues up be happy with any accurate context that could be added? That seems doubtful, at least for non-historians. Many Civil War historians lean toward keeping them up but adding context; most non-historians [i.e., heritage proponents] would rather keep the implied or stated “Lost Cause” history. Those who adamantly want them removed probably may not think context would significantly change the meaning of the statues, which historically and continues to be promotion of white supremacy (whether everyone admits that or not).
So it would seem the problem wouldn’t be solved by adding context. As you say, the statues mean different things to different people. Some of that is historically defensible; some historically indefensible. It’s hard to see a resolution acceptable, or even tolerable, to all viewpoints.
Removal might give the intellectual and emotional space necessary to recast the understanding of our history.