TO KEEP'EM OR TEAR'EM DOWN, The ongoing adventures of America's Confederate monuments

What should we honor with a monument? The country began seriously questioning this several years ago after the white supremacists rally in Charlottesville, VA. Following that rally calls for taking down Confederate monuments became a heated topic. The question has taken on increasing urgency recently in the wake of Black Lives Matter protests around the country. The usual target of these efforts to take down monuments has been Confederate statues, typically in the South. However, recently there has been vandalism and destruction aimed at statues of Christopher Columbus, George Washington, Ulysses S. Grant and more. Some parts of the country have resisted these efforts but it’s becoming increasingly clear that this is an issue that’s not going away.

I’m going to start with a look at exactly what a monument is. The Dictionary defines monument as a statue, memorial stone or building erected in remembrance of a notable person or event. Given this definition it’s easy to see why there’s a desire to maintain these monuments. After all, I don’t think anyone believes we should forget the Confederacy. But that’s not the whole story. Implicit in erecting and maintaining a monument is an endorsement of the thing being memorialized. There’s no part of our history that we should forget, but we don’t build monuments to everything. We select the aspects of our history we want to celebrate when deciding what or who is deserving of a monument. There’s not a monument to Admiral Yamamoto in Hawaii to commemorate his bombing of Pearl Harbor. There’s not a memorial to America’s most famous traitor Benedict Arnold. Actually, that’s not quite true, but I’ll come back to that one.

As a society we are editorializing when we choose to have a monument on public grounds. Certainly, we should study other important people and events as well. But in putting up a statue we’re drawing attention to the things we think are most important. The form of the monument makes a difference as well. The structure and wording on a monument can convey a range of ideas. We don’t have a big bronze statue of Admiral Yamamoto at Pearl Harbor, but we do have a Pearl Harbor memorial. Just two years ago the National Lynching Memorial opened in Montgomery Alabama. The imagery and design of that memorial makes the tragic events it’s memorializing unmistakable.

Deciding on the most appropriate form for a memorial is often a dicey subject that can become a political hot potato. The legacy of the Vietnam War is still a subject of great debate. Some view it as an ill-conceived exercise in American imperialism while others see it as a noble effort to halt the spread of communism. The somber design of the Vietnam War Memorial was initially controversial as some viewed it as having an antiwar message. Over time acceptance of the design grew as both sides were able to interpret it in an acceptable way. The Benedict Arnold monument I alluded to earlier was another tricky one. Before he was a traitor, he was one of our top heroes of the Revolution. Eventually a small monument was put up that didn’t mention Arnold by name and consisted of a carved stone boot to signify the leg injury he received at the battle of Saratoga.

When erecting a monument, it needs to be clear what it’s paying reverence to. In the case of the Vietnam memorial, they wanted to honor the sacrifice of the soldiers without glorifying a misguided war effort. In the case of Benedict Arnold’s monument, they wanted to recognize his sacrifice at one of the key battles in the war, but without glorifying the name of the man who came to symbolize the word “traitor” in this country. When evaluating Confederate statues, we need to determine what is the monument’s purpose and what is it recognizing.

The words and imagery used varies, but there’s a clear theme in most Confederate monuments of a noble lost cause. This is problematic right off the bat. The Confederacy’s founding documents are explicit that white supremacy and maintaining the institution of slavery were the cornerstones of their new nation. From their perspective these were honorable ideas. They had no reason to be shy about making it clear why they were doing what they were doing. The Confederacy was to be a shining beacon for the world’s white people. I’m sure some of you are shaking your heads no. I’ll put some links to these documents at the end of this article. I’m going to move on though since that’s not the focus of this article and because it’s already an established historical fact.

Clearly the Confederacy isn’t something we should hold up to the world to celebrate. However, like the monument to lynching, it can be appropriate to have monuments to dark episodes of history assuming the monument’s messaging matches its purpose. None of these monuments are intended to show the Confederacy for the villains they were. The perfect example of that is the Confederate monument here in Pensacola that declares that Confederate soldiers were “uncrowned heroes.” It’s a pretty universal truth that these monuments show the Confederacy in heroic terms.

The case for leaving Confederate monuments up doesn’t get any better when we look at the original motivations for erecting them. The vast majority of them were put up between 1890 and 1920. This coincides with the institutionalization of the Jim Crow laws that plagued the south for decades. These laws mandated segregation in all walks of life and relegated African Americans to second class citizens. These monuments weren’t just put up to remember the Confederacy. They were reinforcing the message that the old power structure was still in place. Slavery was over but white rule had returned to the south. These monuments made sure everyone knew it.

Supporters of these monuments decry the erasing of history by the “politically correct” police. Of course, as mentioned earlier, not having a monument to something doesn’t erase it from history. In fact, the Civil War is probably the most studied event in American history. The Confederacy is in little jeopardy of being forgotten. However more to the point, the purpose of these monuments was never to remember history, quite the opposite. Winston Churchill famously said, “history is written by the victors.” These monuments are an attempt to turn that saying on its head by having the losers shape the narrative. By framing the Confederacy as a noble effort fought by heroic warriors for a just cause they’re white-washing the real history of the Confederacy.

When it comes to the Confederacy there really isn’t any valid argument for not taking them down. However, there’s been an increasing movement to take down statues of other prominent historical figures with a problematic history. This is where I tend to think the momentum of the moment is getting ahead of reason. Most historically important people are complicated and have a mix of good and bad associated with them. A statue of George Washington recognizes his role in the founding of the country, not his ownership of slaves. The relationship between the Founding Fathers and slavery is an important discussion to have. Every U.S. History textbook should address the contradiction inherent in Thomas Jefferson, a slave owner, writing the words, “all men are created equal.” And in fact, most modern textbooks do address these issues.

The current fervor to take down statues of people who had racists or other problematic characteristics sets a dangerous precedent. Alexander Graham Bell, Helen Keller, Charles Lindbergh, Malcolm X could all potentially fall to the whims of a mob who objects to some aspect of their history. The test for who makes the cut isn’t all that difficult. Why are there statues of Benjamin Franklin? Franklin was one of the founders of our nation and one of our greatest scientists. Why are there statues of Jefferson Davis? He led the effort of Southern secession to advance white supremacy and preserve slavery. Why are there statues of Charles Lindbergh? He was a pioneering aviator who was the first man to fly solo across the Atlantic. Do you see how that middle one is different from the other two? All three men have problematic aspects of their personal histories, but only one is primarily known for that problematic history.

That seems like an easy enough standard, but of course nothing is that easy. There are always going to be instances where the decision isn’t so clear cut. Two of the most hotly debated historical figures in this debate are Christopher Columbus and Andrew Jackson. Both were unquestionably important to the history of how we came to be what we are today. It’s equally true that both are associated with the genocide of an entire people. It’s something like Germany building a monument to Hitler to celebrate his rebuilding of the German economy. The bad associated with Hitler would overwhelm any good he might have done. It’s not really fair to compare Columbus and Jackson to Hitler. However, there does need to be a consideration of when the bad is too bad to ignore. There’s not an easy answer for either Columbus or Jackson. Ultimately, it’ll come down to which side has the greater political clout in each city with one of these monuments.

Monuments in public spaces play an important role keeping history alive. They can both celebrate our high points and serve as a reminder for our low points. Since no aspect of history is simple, they can often be sources of debate. That’s true in both their construction and over time in their continued presence. It’s also appropriate to periodically reevaluate memorials. As we grow and become more inclusive as a society it’s worth examining what the message is in the memorials we’ve put up in the past. These Confederate memorials aren’t there to remember a fundamentally good thing that had some bad aspects to it. They are there to honor the very worst aspects of our history, and we cannot allow that to continue.

The Cornerstone Speech The Declaration of Causes of Seceding States