Tag: Confederate monuments

As part of my series on Confederate monuments I recently examined why the Robert E. Lee statue was removed from statuary hall in the Capitol. Not long after, the Emancipation Memorial featuring Abraham Lincoln was removed from a park in Boston. While not a Confederate monument, the Emancipation Memorial removal opens up a similar question: Why was it removed?

If you haven’t read the previous three post on Confederate monuments, the context begins with “The Rational Case for Removing Confederate Monuments.” Two subsequent posts looked at whether such removal “erases history” and whether “added context” was possible.

The Emancipation Memorial in Boston is a copy of the original statue by sculptor Thomas Ball erected in 1876 in what is now Lincoln Park, Washington, DC. The Lincoln Group of DC was involved in two teach-ins during the summer after the memorial was targeted by protesters hoping to tear it down. The DC statue currently remains in place. Prior to the teach-ins, in June of 2020, the Boston Arts Commission voted to remove the statue and place it in storage until some appropriate location capable of providing relevant context can be found. They agreed to have the statue removed before the end of the year, and that occurred in orderly fashion on December 27, 2020.  The stated reasons were because of “the statue’s role in perpetuating harmful prejudices and obscuring the role of Black Americans in shaping the nation’s freedoms.”

For those not familiar with the statue itself, it was designed to commemorate the emancipation proclamation of Abraham Lincoln that called for enslaved people to be “henceforward and forever free.” An admirable action. So what is the problem?

I wrote about this in a previous post:

One aspect of that history that remains controversial today is the Freedman’s Memorial in Washington, DC. Often referred to as the “Emancipation Memorial” or “Freedom’s Memorial” or even “Lincoln and Emancipation,” the statue by sculptor Thomas Ball was erected in Lincoln Park east of the U.S. Capitol. It depicts Abraham Lincoln standing over an enslaved black man being released from his shackles and beginning the slow rise to equality. The face of the African American man represents that of a real person, Archer Alexander. Frederick Douglass was the keynote speaker at the 1876 dedication, which was also attended by President Ulysses S. Grant. Importantly, the funding of the statue was solely provided by freedmen (and women), with the first $5 donated by former slave Charlotte Scott of Virginia. While they didn’t have a say in the final design, the statue represents the efforts of African Americans to commemorate their emancipation from centuries of forced servitude.

Much of the controversy stems from the positioning of the figures, in particular the apparent subservient position of Archer Alexander. The original concept of Lincoln freeing the slaves and the depiction of now formerly enslaved men to rise seems to have been lost from current understanding. Another problem with today’s interpretation is the tendency to cherry pick from Frederick Douglass’s dedication speech, a wonderful oratory that delved into the complex relationships between Lincoln, Grant, former slaves, and the continuing struggle for equality. As the statue was being dedicated, so too was the Reconstruction period coming to an end. Whereas Reconstruction had guaranteed the rights of African Americans, the Jim Crow era that arose in response sought to destroy those rights. As W.E.B. Dubois said, “the slave went free; stood a brief moment in the sun; then moved back again toward slavery.” Alas, our long history of systemic racism continues to this day.

In addition to being paid for by former enslaved people and dedicated by Frederick Douglass, the statue was turned 180 degrees in the 1970s to present a pairing with the newly erected statue of African American civil rights activist and educator Mary McLeod Bethune. Despite this context, the design elements seem inappropriate to many in the modern era. In fact, new research discovered after the controversy erupted in the summer of 2020 showed that soon after dedicating it, Frederick Douglass opined in a newspaper advertisement that he thought the statue’s design could be improved by adding additional statues, e.g., African American leaders of the time.

Which is why a memorial dedicated to celebrating emancipation from slavery is the subject of reevaluation.

So how does this relate to the ongoing reevaluation of Confederate monuments? The Emancipation Memorial is obviously not a Confederate monument, but it does have design elements that can be interpreted as promoting white supremacy, notwithstanding the original intent. It highlights the issue presented in my original post, “The Rational Case for Removing Confederate Monuments,” in particular that modern interpretation is relevant to the discussion. Of course, also relevant is the context of the original funding and dedication, as well as the event depicted – emancipation from slavery.

The Boston Arts Commission, by whatever process they used, has determined that the statue should be removed from its place of prominence. So far the original statue in Washington, DC remains in place. Who is right? Is either right? That’s not a question that has a solid right or wrong answer. It is important that the Boston statue was removed after public input and removed respectfully and officially rather than by violent mob action or defacement. There is disagreement among historians as to whether the statue should remain. This is in contrast to Confederate monuments where there has been a noticeable shift in thinking toward removal, although not universally so.

All this highlights that a reevaluation of our memorialization history is necessary and appropriate. While the focus was originally on Confederate statues, there has been spillover into non-Confederate statues and school namings such as Lincoln, Grant, Washington, Jefferson, Columbus, and others. Each of these has a different set of issues to be evaluated, from each other and from Confederate statues. I’ll examine that issue more closely in future posts.

Follow me for updates on my Facebook author page and Goodreads.

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.

Virginians woke up Monday morning, December 21, 2020, to the news that the statue of Robert E. Lee was removed overnight from statuary hall of the U.S. Capitol. The Lee statue had stood in the hall as one of Virginia’s two designated representative statues for 111 years. Each state is allowed two statues, some of which are in statuary hall while others are located in other areas of the Capitol building. The second Virginia representative is George Washington.

So why was Robert E. Lee removed?

I’ve been addressing the issue of Confederate statues and other monuments to the Confederacy in a series of posts beginning with “The Rational Case for Removing Confederate Monuments.” Two subsequent posts (to date) looked at whether such removal “erases history” and whether “added context” was possible. Those posts provide some needed background for evaluating the current action.

In short, many jurisdictions – states, localities, federal – have been reassessing the message put forward by honoring Confederate leadership such as Lee and Jefferson Davis. Several statues have been removed, most notably statues in New Orleans (Lee, Beauregard) and Charleston, South Carolina (John C. Calhoun). A handful of statues were pulled down by mobs during this past summer’s protests following the death of George Floyd and others. Similarly, a few schools have been renamed (Robert E. Lee High School in Virginia is now Barack Obama High School). The Defense Department has indicated it will rename army bases currently named after Confederate generals. Overall, however, the vast majority of statues and names remain in place, some perhaps forever while others while public discussion continues.

Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi in 2020 ordered the movement of several portraits of prior Speakers who had, after serving as leader of the House of Representatives, then rejected their U.S. citizenship to become leaders in the Confederacy. These portraits remain in the Capitol but now are found in less prominent locations, in essence reflecting their downfall from grace. The current decision by the state of Virginia to remove Robert E. Lee follows in this general reassessment of Confederate iconography. The moves are not restricted to Democratic leaders; Republican Governor Ron DeSantis spearheaded the effort to replace Florida’s statue of Confederate General Edmund Kirby Smith with black civil rights activist and educator, Mary McLeod Bethune. Bethune also has a large statue in Lincoln Park, where the summer of 2020 saw efforts to save a statue of Lincoln and freedman Archer Alexander from destruction.

Other statues in statuary hall have been replaced for a variety of reasons by their sponsoring states. Ohio recently replaced a statue of former Governor William Allen with famed inventor Thomas Edison. In 2019, Nebraska replaced its statue of William Jennings Bryan with Ponca Chief Standing Bear. Ohio replaced James Harlan with agricultural scientist Norman Borlaug. In 2009, California replaced Thomas Starr King with former Governor and President Ronald Reagan. At least eight states have made recent replacements, seven have replacements pending, and three have replacements under consideration. Some of these are to replace Confederate statues, but most are for other reasons. Reevaluation of which icons of history each state wants to represent them are not unusual.

Which gets us back to Robert E. Lee. As a former Confederate state and location of the capital of the Confederacy, Virginia has had to assess and reevaluate its place in modern America. A statue of Jefferson Davis on Monument Avenue in Richmond was torn down by vandals during the George Floyd protests. A large equestrian statue of “Stonewall” Jackson was removed by the state. The removal of the Lee statue from statuary hall is a continuation of this reassessment.

The likely replacement of Lee is civil rights activist Barbara Johns, who in 1951, at the age of 16, led a walkout at her segregated high school to protest substandard conditions. Her lawsuit against the county was folded into the landmark Brown v Board of Education case resulting in the Supreme Court decision declaring “separate but equal” unconstitutional. Johns would be the only teenager represented in statuary hall. The Commission for Historical Statues approved the Johns statue and the Virginia legislature is expected to agree, after which a sculptor will be commissioned.

As states, local communities, and in some cases, federal actors continue to reassess the historical record, we are likely to see an increased effort for more inclusive representation in public spaces. Each of us can play a role by communicating our views to lawmakers at all levels of government. Meanwhile, I will continue to examine the issues associated with Confederate monuments in future posts. I’ll also take a look at “overflow” of the Confederate monument debate into other potentially controversial figures such as Christopher Columbus, our slaveholding founding fathers, and remarkably, even Abraham Lincoln.

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!

[Photo Credit: Glynn Wilson, Why is Robert E. Lee’s Statue in the U.S. Capitol Not Yet the Subject of Controversy? | New American Journal]

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!

A week ago I wrote a post titled, “The Rational Case for Removing Confederate Monuments.” There were a couple of important comments that I addressed on that post, but one in particular that I would like to address here – Do we ‘erase history’ by removing confederate monuments?

The short answer is no, but the longer answer reveals that this question is more complicated. In fact, the question is really two questions: First, do Confederate statues accurately reflect history? Second, does removing statues disable us from learning history? Keep in mind that when I say monuments I include Confederate statues as well as naming schools, army bases, and roads after Confederate generals and political leaders.

As I noted in my original post, the history that these monuments honor is a false history, which is commonly referred to as “The Lost Cause.” Confederate monuments were a concerted attempt to rewrite history to deny slavery’s role in antebellum America and its fundamental causation of secession and the Civil War. Erecting Confederate monuments joined with Jim Crow laws and intimidation by white supremacist groups like the KKK to both undermine the voting rights of African Americans and promote a white superiority political power structure.

Why? One reason is inherent in the paragraph above – to maintain white-dominated political, social, and economic power. Prior to the Civil War the South was dominated by a plantation economy based on the existence of slave labor. Small farmers were bought, or forced through intimidation, out of the cotton market (as well as tobacco and sugar markets) because they couldn’t compete with huge plantations. This put all economic and political power in the hands of the wealthy few. Since vast acreages of cotton required significant manual labor, Americans of African origin were held in enslavement and forced to do the work. For a variety of reasons, this slave-labor based economic system grew in the South while diminishing in the North. Compromises in the Constitution, in 1820, and in 1850 tried to limit the spread of slavery as the geographic area of the United States expanded (because of the Louisiana Purchase and Mexican War, for example) while also securing continuing rights of slaveowners in those states in which slavery existed. The Kansas-Nebraska Act in 1854 and Dred Scott decision in 1857 gave more power to slave states, again focused on the power of wealthy plantation owners. With the near-election of John C. Fremont in 1856 and the actual election of Abraham Lincoln in 1860, these wealthy plantation slaveowners felt that slavery was in danger. Worse, they saw that potential racial equality would eliminate their white superiority power structure. Thus, the slaveholding states decided to secede and go to war to protect and expand slavery, and along with it, their belief that whites were superior to blacks. That perceived racial superiority continued to drive actions to disenfranchise black rights as guaranteed in the 13th, 14th, and 15th amendments.

But there is a second reason for why the Lost Cause mythology caught hold, and why the United Daughters of the Confederacy and others focused on erecting statues in the early 20th century. As with most Americans, I am rightly proud of my father’s service in World War II. Others are proud of their own personal or family service in fighting for our nation. But consider the position of sons and daughters of Confederate veterans. Their fathers fought in a war to break up the United States and expand the right to enslave other people. True, most rank and file soldiers were probably not slaveowners themselves and may not have even been all-in on the idea of the war (which is why their leaders lied to soldiers, telling them it was a “war of northern aggression”), but to some extent their descendants must have felt similar to what the sons and daughters of Nazi soldiers felt in the decades following WWII. We all want to honor the bravery of our ancestors. The Lost Cause fabricated a mythology that allowed us to honor them. Even today there are many members of Civil War roundtables who proudly trace their heritage back to Confederate soldiers. Now, I’m going to stop here on this particularly topic because it requires a much deeper dive into history that I’ll attempt in a future post. I’ll leave by saying that I think people today should still warmly regard their ancestors that fought in the rank-and-file for the Confederacy. They should do so with a full understanding of the history, both of the Civil War (including pre- and post-) and their ancestors’ specific circumstances. I highly encourage genealogy and historical studies on both sides of the conflict.

To summarize this first part of the question – Confederate monuments do not accurately reflect our history. Instead, their purpose is to deflect from actual history and create a feel-good alternative, and false, history.

Which gets us to the second part of the question: Does removing statues erase history, or perhaps better put, keep us from learning and understanding history?

In fact, removing Confederate statues may actually allow us to better understand our history. Once these monuments to a false history are removed, we can focus on doing a better job of communicating our actual history. In essence, the monuments distract us from learning history by replacing it with a political and social debate. A more accurate view of our history would need to include an honest discussion of the dominant role of slavery from our Constitution through the Civil Rights acts and beyond. It would require an accurate recounting of the pervasiveness of slave-based economic system, including the relationships between cotton plantations of the South, financiers and shipbuilders of New York, and the textile mills of New England. With respect to specific monuments, here is what I wrote in response to a comment on my original post:

As for “real historical information,” most would define that as accurate and complete history of individuals and the times. For example, Robert E. Lee might include his service in the United States Army prior to rejected 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. Nathan Bedford Forrest’s history would obviously included 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.

All of this and more would be necessary for us to gain a fuller understanding of our shared history.

So does this mean that all Confederate monuments should come down? Maybe. Or maybe not. The goal here is to encourage a rational debate on the fate of Confederate monuments, but also in a larger sense, a discussion of our often complicated and not-always-admirable history. Rather than call for feel-good propaganda – a hallmark of fascist and authoritarian states, not democracies – we should be calling for a more complete understanding of the principles and actions of our nation. Individual statues might remain or moved or provided with additional context. A rational discussion of Confederate monuments can help us communicate the realities of our history to the public such that the public can make more informed and rational choices. The more we can do this proactively, the less we’ll see of uninformed mob action.

This process has another benefit. The discussion may help us come closer to the Founders’ ideal of “all men are created equal” endowed with the unalienable rights of “life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.” The goal isn’t to remove anyone’s rights but to ensure the rights imbued by our Constitution apply to ALL Americans.

I’ll continue with future posts addressing other rebuttals or concerns to my original post outlining a rational case for removing Confederate monuments. If you have any thoughts, either in support or refutation of what I’ve written, feel free to leave a comment below and I’ll do my best to provide a response. As always, any rational and respectful comment will be addressed. Non-respectful, racist, or vulgar diatribes will not. The goal here is rational dialogue.

[Photo credit: (Abdazizar/Via Wikimedia Commons)

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!