San Francisco targets Abraham Lincoln schools for renaming. Chicago targets Abraham Lincoln and other statues for possible removal. DC Congressional Delegate Eleanor Holmes Norton introduces a bill to remove the Emancipation Memorial statue in Washington, D.C. These efforts are severely misguided, based on political expediency rather than an informed discussion of Lincoln and other past American leaders.
I’ve been addressing the issues surrounding removal, and consideration of removal, of Confederate statues across the nation. There is a rational case for removing Confederate statues. There is no rational case for removing Abraham Lincoln statues.
The motives are understandable and I strongly encourage an open and honest discussion of problematic statues. In my “rational case” post I explained that there are three time periods reflected by, and must be considered, for every statue: the subject, the motive and timing of erection, and the present. Norton’s bill to remove the Emancipation Memorial statue is based almost entirely on the present perspective. While many believe that present perspective overrides the two earlier perspectives, proponents of removing the statue are obligated to make that case in a public forum, not by arbitrarily passing a bill by politicians without any interest in the discussion or the outcome, i.e., 99%+ of the House Representatives and Senators who would vote on the bill. Norton would better serve her constituents by using her power to garner news coverage, input from the city, from the National Park Service (who owns the statue, hence the need for a law before it can be removed or augmented), and a much needed discussion of the larger issues beyond the presence of the statue. This last point is critical and I’ll return to it shortly.
While the Emancipation Memorial is controversial because of its inherent design elements (Boston removed its copy of the statue for this reason), the actions by San Francisco and Chicago have no such controversies stimulating their actions. Instead, they are acting based on misrepresentation of Lincoln’s attitudes and actions.
San Francisco has every right to name, or rename, schools within their jurisdiction. Their far-ranging list of names they want to move away from includes several U.S. Presidents, the current California Senator (who was once Mayor of San Francisco), environmentalist John Muir, and many others. While some of the reasons are potentially persuasive, others border on the ridiculous.
Regarding Abraham Lincoln, the chair of the renaming committee argued that “Lincoln, like the presidents before him and most after, did not show through policy or rhetoric that black lives ever mattered to them outside of human capital and as casualties of wealth building.” This comment is simply absurd. Lincoln was literally murdered because his assassin listened to Lincoln argue for black voting rights. Lincoln issued the Emancipation Proclamation, which freed enslaved people and brought African Americans into the armed forces, which played a large role in why the Union won the Civil War. As the Spielberg movie Lincoln dramatically documented, Lincoln acted aggressively to ensure passage of the 13th Amendment ending slavery. African American leaders like Frederick Douglass recounted their personal experiences with Lincoln, all saying that he treated them like any other American. As historian Jonathan White explains in Smithsonian, Lincoln most certainly believed black lives mattered.
The spreadsheet outlining the reasons for renaming noted that Lincoln was “not seen as a hero” among Native Americans “as the majority of his policies proved to be detrimental to them.” By this standard, every American president before Lincoln – and since Lincoln – would not be acceptable for naming schools, including Ronald Reagan. The country has a long history of maltreatment of Native populations; Lincoln neither enlarged it nor shrunk it during his time in office. Given he was faced with the most critical existential crisis of our nation’s history, the Civil War, which did not end until the time he was assassinated, it is unrealistic to expect that he would have to time to reverse long-standing attitudes and policies that virtually no one in the country was acting to change. And yet in his last two annual messages to Congress he did call for a reevaluation of the government’s treatment of Native Americans, something he had planned to deal with in his second term after the war was over if he had lived to do so.
Chicago, yes, even Chicago, has also recently called for the reevaluation of 41 statues and monuments within the city as part of their “racial healing and historical reckoning project.” Again, the focus of the Lincoln statues is because the committee “determined Native Americans were mistreated during his administration.” The points made above apply to Chicago’s actions as well. Part of this idea is a misunderstanding of Lincoln’s role in the “Dakota 38,” which resulted the hanging of 38 Dakota Native Americans in Minnesota in 1862. I’ve discussed this misunderstanding in depth here.
Which gets me back to the idea for a much needed discussion of the larger issues beyond the presence of the statue. Removing these statues and renaming schools does not make these larger issues – white supremacy, systemic racism, continuing disadvantaging of BiPOC individuals suddenly disappear. In some ways it may exacerbate them, especially when the reasons presented for removal are based on misrepresentation and misunderstanding of history, along with unrealistic expectations of perfection in our past leaders. These are not Confederates who literally chose to divide America, they are leaders who fought hard to create, protect, and bring America closer to the ideal of a more perfect Union. They were human, like all of us, and should be treated as human, not as some idealistic “god” of humanity who aren’t allowed not be perfect.
So rather than simply remove statues by edict for political expediency, current day leaders should take advantage of the opportunity our more recent awareness affords us and lead public discussions across America. Rather than pass a resolution to rename schools on misinformation, use the school names as a focal point for deep public education. Neither San Francisco, nor Chicago, nor Washington, D.C. involved historians in their debates. How is that even possible? Historians expert on each of the historical figures are happy to participate in discussions with school boards or monument commissions. They, we, are happy to sit down with the public and policy-makers to help everyone better understand the relevant history. That’s what we do.
Ultimately, it is up to those responsible communities to decide how they will proceed. Undoubtedly there are some historical figures that we will, and should, choose no longer to honor. But that discussion should be done in the open. Beyond that, the discussion must include the larger issues that remain even after statues and school names are removed. Leaders have an opportunity to lead; they must embrace this opportunity, not hide from it by making arbitrary decisions.
David J. Kent is an avid science traveler and the author of Lincoln: The Man Who Saved America. His previous books include Tesla: The Wizard of Electricity and Edison: The Inventor of the Modern World and two specialty e-books: Nikola Tesla: Renewable Energy Ahead of Its Time and Abraham Lincoln and Nikola Tesla: Connected by Fate.
Follow me for updates on my Facebook author page and Goodreads.
You and I have discussed these issues recently and I am now convinced that your opinions support the emergence of the egregious Critical Race Theory, actually a group of concepts authored by and promoted by past socialist and authoritarian governments. Any further erasure of our past, good or bad, can only lead to increasing dilution of our constitutional rights. The removal/destruction of Confederate memorials/statues/etc. is simply another political strategy to violently overthrow that which some disagree with. Also, remember that Confederates were all Americans too. The inability of our federal government to try Jefferson Davis for treason after the war makes the concept of seccession moot, Even today, it is being actively reconsidered.
Your identification shows up as “Anonymous,” so I obviously can’t determine if you and I have discussed these issues before or not.
That said, I’m not sure how you derive the opinion you espouse since it doesn’t seem to fit what I wrote.
Regarding “erasure of the past,” I’ve never suggested any such thing, nor as a historian would I. The confusion seems to be based on the premise that removing statues makes history go away, which is a faulty premise. I explore the idea of “erasing history” in depth in a previous post: https://davidjkent-writer.com/2020/10/28/do-we-erase-history-by-removing-confederate-monuments/
Statues in practice offer close to zero history. An extremely limited number of people see or notice any individual statue, and of those that do, most seem not to bother to read whatever context is provided on it. All statues offer a narrow snippet of history in any context. Confederate statues, in particular, intentionally offer a false history. I’ve discussed the idea of context in depth in a previous post: https://davidjkent-writer.com/2020/12/11/can-we-add-context-to-confederate-monuments/
I’m not sure how removal of statues is “another political strategy to violently overthrown that which some disagree with.” What exactly is it that some disagree with? If it is that they disagree with false history and promotion of white supremacy, would it be valid to want to remove objects that promote such a view?
As for “Confederates were all Americans too,” that is indeed true. Americans who fought to destroy the nation so that slavery could be protected and expanded. That is their history. Was their decision worthy of honoring with statues?
Regarding Jefferson Davis not being tried for treason, it wasn’t an “inability” to do so but a conscious choice not to bother to do so. I’ll address these additional points in future posts.
I’m not sure how the concept of secession is moot. Eleven states did secede and did so to protect and expand slavery. Current threats to secede are largely a con game (e.g., Texas’s Governors regularly interplay threats of secession with pleas for federal assistance). Even if they were serious, would not this be yet another attempt to destroy the Union, i.e., treason?
But this post is about Lincoln and other statues. As I noted in the post, while there are legitimate arguments for removing Confederate statues, these arguments don’t apply to Abraham Lincoln. The arguments put forth are perhaps partially valid, but it’s not reasonable to use metrics that would eliminate virtual every historical American, including many of the people they might propose to replace the ones removed.
I had to run quickly at the end of my comment above, so I’m back to ask a question I would have asked. I would be very interested in hearing your views on why removing statues is “erasing history.” How or why do you think that is so? What history is it erasing? Thanks.
Wow! Your arguments ironically support the opposite of your claims. Obviously, the damaging/removal of Confederate (or any) monuments has the cumulative effect of at least partial erasure/cancellation of their history. How do you know how many people have been affected by their presence, positive or negative. Have you taken a poll? As for secession, you are incorrect. The powers that were at the time, even President Johnson, decided that it was unwise to try J. Davis for treason as he would likely have won his case and established a legal precedence. The Confederate States of America, do indeed represent a significant era of our national history. In that light and others they deserve their existence. While perhaps some, at one time were erected to honor people or events, that meaning may have faded for many, but they continue to represent that which we must study and learn from for present and future generations. The entire Critical Race Theory, including concepts such as institutional racism, White Supremacy, and the Cancel Culture amongst other socialist doctrines, is a viable theory to be studied and perhaps carefully included in our society so long as it does not threaten our individual constitutional rights. The introduction of CRT into our educational, religious, and political institutions is exactly what many are opposed to. It is they who are being effectively silenced and canceled.
As for my anonymity, the reply system here used did not allow my identification. I’ll try again as I finish now.
Hi Scott. Not sure why your first comment came up as “Anonymous.” WordPress has been giving me headaches lately. Glad your follow up identified correctly.
I’m not sure how my arguments support the opposite of my claims. Which claims do you believe my comments support the opposite of?
I don’t think it is obvious at all that removing monuments erases history, as I’ve discussed at length before. Mitch Landrieu removed Robert E. Lee’s statue in New Orleans a few years ago. Do you think many people have forgotten who Robert E. Lee was? Let’s say all of the statues of Lee are removed; would we forget him then? How would that be possible. When we talk about the Civil War we obviously have to talk about what it was about, who was fighting whom, what Generals fought which battles, and who surrendered to Grant at Appomattox Court House. I don’t know how many books have been written about Robert E. Lee, but it’s probably at least hundreds, if not thousands when you include Civil War battles books. Lee’s papers reside in several Universities, not the least of which is Washington and Lee University, which was renamed in his honor. Others perhaps less famous as Lee but famous enough to statues or school names would also have books and papers and name recognition. And, of course, no one is suggesting we take Lee or the Confederacy out of history books. In fact, we want more and more accurate information presented in the books and courses used to teach American history.
As for how do I know how many people have been affected by the presence of a particular statue, I obviously don’t have an exact number, which would vary by statue and location. I do know that logistically only a small number of people will ever see a particular statue. You literally have to walk by it, which limits it to the people who actually walk by it, many of whom are going to be rushing to and from work, restaurants, and businesses and won’t even notice it. There are many cases of people finding out what a statue was, or the details about it, only after passing it for years despite a well-designed plaque on the side of it that they never bothered to read. And those that do notice often find them objectionable. One African American professor who grew up in Richmond, for example, said she found Jefferson Davis and Robert E Lee statues to be a constant reminder of both historical subjugation and continuing discrimination. It’s not overly shocking that those who see the statues in a positive way are white supremacists, most notably the neo-Nazis marching to protect a Robert E Lee statue in Charlottesville.
Regarding secession, I’ll deal with that in more detail shortly. But it isn’t accurate to assume Davis would have won his case. Johnson was a white supremacist who had no problems with former Confederates reestablishing their dominance. Meanwhile, the idea of prosecuting treason trials was untenable for political reasons, not legal reasons.
I fully agree with you that the Confederacy does represent a significant era of our national history and must be fully discussed in our history teaching. That teaching should be based on fact and accurately interpreted. The absence of statues doesn’t inhibit us doing that, and in fact, their existence clogs up the space needed for a factual accounting. Learning from the past is important, which means we need to be accurate about describing that past.
I agree that the concepts of systemic racism and white supremacy are important aspects of society that play into these discussions of states, in the sense that voices so long ignored can no longer be so. Those voices are as valid as the voices that have held the floor for our entire history. The idea that listening to voices who have been suppressed somehow suppresses voices that have dominated the conversation for centuries isn’t tenable. Having the Constitution apply to everyone’s rights in no way reduces the rights of others. No one is getting canceled other than the voices that have been canceled for most of our nation’s history. They finally have a voice that the dominant voices can’t simply ignore.
The bottom line is that if people want to preserve Confederate statuary and school and army base namings, they have the right and obligation to make their case for doing so. That case must be based on actual, real, documented history, not a false history created to avoid the real history. If those views are persuasive, then statues stay up. Meanwhile, those opposed to statues and namings also need to make their case for removal, with the same requirements for accuracy and reality. In the end, individual statues will either stay up or come down or be augmented or moved or whatever, but history will still remain. We’ll continue to teach it in schools, write books about it, and debate it in historian circles, academic conferences, and the public square. The goal is to make sure we are factually honest about our history, the good and the bad.
History will always be re-interpreted according the prevailing values of the time and place in which it is being considered. To some extent, I think that’s okay. I certainly wouldn’t advocate for a return to slavery, expansionism involving the massacres of indigenous populations, or a world view espousing colonialism. But social values are a constantly moving target. And the erasure of any history tends to obscure this in much the same way as propaganda, usually to the benefit of autocrats who will insist that their leadership promotes some highest attainable state. In that sense, I’m reluctant to approve of the withdrawal of any truly historical artifacts, even those which may stir controversy.
The question then becomes whether or not statues or place-names are truly “historical artifacts”, or merely honors bestowed upon people who aroused passions during their moments in history. In effect, should Americans be inspired by the person, or what that person represents to a society?
This is where I continue to think that this is a self-inflicted crisis caused by Americans’ elevation of individuals to something more akin to the God-like status of Roman emperors, meanwhile losing the more important context of what they might have achieved. I have no doubt that Lincoln was a great leader, and that much was accomplished during his tenure that bettered the nation. But how many who look at his statue can explain exactly how the nation was bettered, why it was such an achievement in the context of Lincoln’s own time, and what that means for our time?
Personally, I think this fixation on individuals has unfortunately removed any sense of context from their names, leaving a hollowed-out historical shell of statues and place-names as empty temples, easy targets for destruction by groups hoping to erase history and elevate their own interpretations in much the same way of Mao or Pol Pot. That such a movement would emerge within the sociopolitical disaster of present California comes as little surprise. I just wonder what statues will find themselves being toppled by subsequent generations wanting to forget our present.
True, history will always be reinterpreted by the present time, which is a moving target. In this case, the voices speaking out are voices that have purposely been ignored in the past. And as you say, we have some pretty rotten parts of our history.
I don’t think removal of statues or school names have much, if anything, to do with “erasing history.” The people honored by such things are honored because they are already well known to history. Removing a statue hardly anyone sees or notices doesn’t change what we already know, with the exception of more obscure personages that somehow got themselves a statue that hardly anyone will ever see (perhaps locally important, but those are the ones being targeted). No one is going to forget who Robert E. Lee or Nathan Bedford Forrest was if their statues are removed. And no one is going to forget Lincoln if all the statues to him are suddenly gone.
I’m not saying they should go, just that their removal (especially if they are moved to museums, etc) doesn’t erase them from history.
Your point about statues as artifacts that doesn’t fully communicate, or worse, distract from, the actual accomplishments, is right on. The reasons for removing Lincoln statues are often meaningful, but horribly incomplete and commonly false. Same for others. Even Confederate monuments have some points for keeping them, although most scholars and perhaps Americans are pretty clear that they shouldn’t remain. Those reasons simply don’t apply to non-Confederate monuments.
You mention “erase history” again. But that isn’t done by taking down statues. The only way to erase history is to refuse to teach it in schools and life. Countries may have done that, but not simply by hiding a statue, and not even erased; more like made it a crime to publicly admit you remember. Again, Confederate monuments are part of a campaign to completely fabricate a false history, a campaign that involved writing laws, rewriting text books, and intimidating the populace.
For Lincoln, we absolutely need to revisit how we teach him. His relationships, actions, and inactions with regard to freeing enslaved people and indigenous societies needs to be more fully fleshed out in textbooks and the public sphere. The general public never sees or understands stuff we historians argue about, just as we scientists argue in peer-reviewed journals, conferences, and professional chat rooms. The reasons provided by SF and Chicago are clearly misrepresentative of the complexity of the reality. I think those boards and us historians and politicians should take the discussion to the streets so we can deal with the underlying issues based on actual history, not a false history or a grossly incomplete, and thus misunderstood, history.
Your last point goes to something I think we might have touched on in the past. If we can get away from idolizing individuals and more to concept memorials we might avoid some of the current conflict. That said, there is validity in adding statues of people not represented well in the past, like people of color, indigenous people, and women. There is an artistic benefit to having statues – I can’t imagine a world without Rodin, for example – so we probably wouldn’t want to get away from celebrating contributors to society. How we define who constitutes a contributor is, as you say, a moving target. No matter what we do, we need to present a more robust history that includes people, events, and attitudes that we’ve either ignored or intentionally hidden.
Your comment confuses me, as I fail to see how a monument to individuals removes any sense of context to their names. I see the failure to educate oneself as to the true history of the individuals immortalized, is what removes any sense of context. Few people who have actually learned the history of the monument, and understand the context in which it was placed there and by whom, want it removed. Today’s society often does not take the time to learn history before speaking of it.
I’ve had some past conversations with David, not all here, about what I see as an American cultural fixation on people as opposed to history. I think it’s simply become reflected in the likes of character statues and place names being exchanged for historical substance, often as a means to promote particular political perspectives concurrent to a time. But in essence, I agree entirely with your last sentence. The problem is that American culture becomes focused on the images at the expense of the substance. A good recent example was a local radio station asking simple questions about Martin Luther King Jr. on “MLK Day”. To a person, no one could answer even a single question other than that he had been assassinated and that he had uttered the words, “I have a dream.”
This isn’t entirely a recent phenomenon, but it seems to have emerged as a popular staple of American political culture subsequent to 1909 when Lincoln’s image replaced “Lady Liberty” on the Lincoln Cent. From there, it didn’t take long to expand from staple commemorative coinage to the likes of Mount Rushmore and Stone Mountain, which were both clear examples of ideologies ultimately wrapping themselves in “American” historical imagery. Their “artistic value” thus becomes inherently tied to a social perspective or political agenda concurrent to the time of their creation… sometimes only understandable through that same learning of history.
David knows that I have an Asian background, which affects somewhat my perceptions. Human imagery is an easily recognized characteristic of political propaganda in most Asian cultures. Generally speaking, Asian imagery intended to evoke a sense of culture or history doesn’t include charismatic political personalities. The New Taiwan Dollar is an excellent example. The most circulated banknote has an image of children as students, expressing a deep Taiwanese cultural value. The appearance of the images of Sun Yat-sen and Chiang Kai-shek (political founders comparable to Washington and Lincoln respectively) are consciously and without artistic interpretation placed only on banknotes of least value as sterile historical references. Studying that history as a student is what is portrayed as having greater value. Likewise, Japanese Yen banknotes which display images of historical figures portray scientists, poets, writers, and teachers. Images of political figures and leaders are conspicuously absent.
I actually agree with David that tearing down a Lincoln statue or likewise renaming a school seems terribly misguided. It’s just that given the changes in cultural dynamics combined with the political situation in California, it’s hardly surprising that focusing on the out-of-context interpretation of a statue or associated name would be used to promote what is essentially some current ideological agenda. Lincoln’s role as a leader should be evaluated within the context of his being a man of his time; but that requires an understanding of American history. And not all that unlike the Maoists unheeding destruction of the artifacts of China’s past, it’s far easier to simply tear down another frozen image of a “privileged White man” in promotion of one’s new and better idea.
Interesting to read about the banknotes photos. I’m all for putting scientists, poets, and writers on our money.
It will be interesting to see where all this goes. After I wrote this yesterday it was reported that San Francisco has backtracked on their idea, promising to involve historians when/if they revisit it. Chicago has a nice website set up where they encourage public and historian input, and it seems they plan a longer term dialogue, which if I read it right is what I’ve been proposing we do proactively. So we’ll see.
I’ve been working with my Lincoln Group and several other related organizations to broaden our focus such that we can better involve ourselves with current day issues that build on the people and time period we study. Again, we’ll see how it all goes, but there is potential this moment could end up encouraging greater civic involvement by more Americans.
I see Lightness Traveling responded to your comment, Dorris, so I’ll respond to your second comment below.
People make history. It is their actions at a certain time and place that make events. Historians have an obligation to share those stories, of those people and those events, as factually and honestly of those people and those events, without bias. However, we are human beings, and have difficulty sometimes of not allowing the bias’ that are inbred in us by our upbringing and interfering with the story. That is why education of our history is so important! Just as today, we can not always rely on the accuracy of the story, we must consider more than one history to fully grasp a story without bias.
Historians write books, screenwriters make movies, scriptwriters create plays, and sculptors mold statues, and are each done by a human being trying to relate that the events of a person in a moment in time. Unfortunately as well, many of us also simply assume, and do not seek to further our education of our history. They impose their bias and prejudice on the story. They are unaware of the accurate history, and want to eradicate any trace of a story, a person, or an event, that contradicts and confuses the story they want to believe. It is easier to stand up and yell “remove it” than it is to take the time to educate oneself and respectfully and honestly discuss the story.
There are those that want to remove the Emancipation Monument in Washington DC because they feel that the former enslaved should have had a say. Imposing the abilities of people today, on the abilities of an enslaved person in 1865, shows the lack of education and knowledge of the life of an enslaved person such as Archer Alexander had in 1865. To suggest that they should have taken a Facebook Poll, whereas these people, often refugees, homeless, and uneducated gave their nickels, dimes and pennies, is a sad display of an elected person’s lack of knowledge about their people.
Not all white people owned slaves in 1865. There were white people who made history helping black people. Its time we open a dialogue, with understanding and compassion, but also we need to take the time to educate ourselves to the stories of these people. Whether it exists in a book, a movie, a play or a monument.
Hi Dorris. You make a good point that people make their history by what they do at their time and place, but also that we all interpret those actions in our present time. You can add in the time and place and motivations of the people who erected the statues. This tripartite reflection of history was the basis for my initial post on Confederate statue removal: https://www.davidjkent-writer.com/2020/10/20/the-rational-case-for-removing-confederate-monuments/
There are two issues that relate to interpretation of statues. You identify one of them, that people don’t take the time to learn about the statue (or person in the case of school naming), and thus make decisions based on incomplete knowledge, or worse, ignorance. That’s a problem that I think you captured the partial solution to – historians need to be out there informing the public better than we have. The other issue is I think what “Lightness Traveling” was getting at, that any person’s life is much more complex than the rationale we use to decide we should honor them. We honor Lincoln for many reasons, not because he was perfect, but because he did so much worth honoring. When disparate voices get heard – something that was not the case in the past – those imperfections may take on heightened value judgments than was previously the case.
The Emancipation Monument is a good example. Voices not previously heard now get a hearing, and many of them are unhappy with the design elements of the statue (others question Lincoln’s role, which to my mind is less informed). As you say, and as I know you understand better than me and most others, the story of Archer Alexander is much deeper and complex than what even many of us historians have given credit for. Which reminds me that I need to carve out time to further explore your research on that aspect. In any case, again, we historians need to somehow get the word out better to the public, which I know you are attempting to do.
Finally, I definitely agree we need more dialogue. Historians obviously play a role in that, but we also need to push our elected officials, media outlets, and media-savvy personalities to facilitate greater outreach. A lot of work still to do.