Page 1 of 1

About Confederate Statues . . .

Posted: Thu Aug 17, 2017 4:53 pm
by BoSoxGal
. . . and memorials, this is all that needs saying, really:
Full text of letter from William and Warren Christian, the great, great grandsons of Confederate Gen. Stonewall Jackson to Richmond Mayor Levar Stoney and Members of the Monument Avenue Commission.



Dear Mayor Stoney and Members of the Monument Avenue Commission,

We are native Richmonders and also the great, great grandsons of Stonewall Jackson. As two of the closest living relatives to Stonewall, we are writing today to ask for the removal of his statue, as well as the removal of all Confederate statues from Monument Avenue. They are overt symbols of racism and white supremacy, and the time is long overdue for them to depart from public display. Overnight, Baltimore has seen fit to take this action. Richmond should, too.

In making this request, we wish to express our respect and admiration for Mayor Stoney’s leadership while also strongly disagreeing with his claim that “removal of symbols does [nothing] for telling the actual truth [nor] changes the state and culture of racism in this country today.” In our view, the removal of the Jackson statue and others will necessarily further difficult conversations about racial justice. It will begin to tell the truth of us all coming to our senses.

Last weekend, Charlottesville showed us unequivocally that Confederate statues offer pre-existing iconography for racists. The people who descended on Charlottesville last weekend were there to make a naked show of force for white supremacy. To them, the Robert E. Lee statue is a clear symbol of their hateful ideology. The Confederate statues on Monument Avenue are, too — especially Jackson, who faces North, supposedly as if to continue the fight.

We are writing to say that we understand justice very differently from our grandfather’s grandfather, and we wish to make it clear his statue does not represent us.

Through our upbringing and education, we have learned much about Stonewall Jackson. We have learned about his reluctance to fight and his teaching of Sunday School to enslaved peoples in Lexington, Virginia, a potentially criminal activity at the time. We have learned how thoughtful and loving he was toward his family. But we cannot ignore his decision to own slaves, his decision to go to war for the Confederacy, and, ultimately, the fact that he was a white man fighting on the side of white supremacy.

While we are not ashamed of our great great grandfather, we are ashamed to benefit from white supremacy while our black family and friends suffer. We are ashamed of the monument.

In fact, instead of lauding Jackson’s violence, we choose to celebrate Stonewall’s sister — our great, great, grand-aunt — Laura Jackson Arnold. As an adult Laura became a staunch Unionist and abolitionist. Though she and Stonewall were incredibly close through childhood, she never spoke to Stonewall after his decision to support the Confederacy. We choose to stand on the right side of history with Laura Jackson Arnold.

Confederate monuments like the Jackson statue were never intended as benign symbols. Rather, they were the clearly articulated artwork of white supremacy. Among many examples, we can see this plainly if we look at the dedication of a Confederate statue at the University of North Carolina in which a speaker proclaimed that the confederate soldier “saved the very life of the Anglo-Saxon race in the South.” Disturbingly, he went on to recount a tale of performing the “pleasing duty” of “horse whipping” a black woman in front of Federal Soldiers. All over the South, this grotesque message was attached to similar monuments. As importantly, this message is clear to today’s avowed white supremacists.

There is also historical evidence that the statues on Monument Avenue were rejected by black Richmonders at the time of their construction. In the 1870s, John Mitchell, a black city councilman, called the monuments a tribute to “blood and treason” and voiced strong opposition to the use of public funds for building them. Speaking about the Lee Memorial, he vowed that there would come a time when African Americans would “be there to take it down.”

Ongoing racial disparities in incarceration, educational attainment, police brutality, hiring practices, access to health care and, perhaps most starkly, wealth, make it clear that these monuments do not stand somehow outside of history. Racism and white supremacy, which undoubtedly continue today, are neither natural nor inevitable. Rather, they were created in order to justify the unjustifiable, in particular slavery.

One thing that bonds our extended family, besides our common ancestor, is that many have worked, often as clergy and as educators, for justice in their communities. While we do not portend to speak for all of Stonewall’s kin, our sense of justice leads us to believe that removing the Stonewall statue and other monuments should be part of a larger project of actively mending the racial disparities that hundreds of years of white supremacy has wrought. We hope other descendants of Confederate generals will stand with us.

As cities all over the South are realizing now, we are not in need of added context. We are in need of a new context — one in which the statues have been taken down.

Respectfully,
William Jackson Christian
Warren Edmund Christian

Re: About Confederate Statues . . .

Posted: Thu Aug 17, 2017 5:52 pm
by ex-khobar Andy
I wish it were the kind of country where history's statues could be seen for what they are: symbolism of a time far removed and nothing more. So a statue of a slaveowner is nothing more or less than a reminder that there was a time 'we' thought it right that men and women had not the right to be free. Living for years in London you got used to the idea that around any corner or in any church there might be a bronze image of some knave or charlatan or rogue or saint (sometimes a four-fer) and so you took it all in stride. But in Spain, for example, the last statue of Franco was taken down ten years ago: and while you might find Lenin still standing in some corners of Russia (I saw him 20 years ago in Yuzno-Sakalinsk and no doubt he is still there) I am guessing his successor is long gone from the streets. Because most statues of confederate generals (not all) were erected specifically to bolster Jim Crow times and not by a grateful nation, they have a dark symbolism beyond their time and are a particularly odious form of artistic iconography. I wish they could stay so that we can learn from them, but I am not enough of an optimist to think that the lessons would take.

Re: About Confederate Statues . . .

Posted: Thu Aug 17, 2017 9:46 pm
by Econoline
Interesting article from The Atlantic regarding Robert E. Lee in particular (with numerous quotes from Lee's own writings used as evidence): It's way too long to quote in full, but well worth reading. Here are a few excerpts:
The strangest part about the continued personality cult of Robert E. Lee is how few of the qualities his admirers profess to see in him he actually possessed.

The myth of Lee goes something like this: He was a brilliant strategist and devoted Christian man who abhorred slavery and labored tirelessly after the war to bring the country back together.

There is little truth in this. Lee was a devout Christian, and historians regard him as an accomplished tactician. But despite his ability to win individual battles, his decision to fight a conventional war against the more densely populated and industrialized North is considered by many historians to have been a fatal strategic error.

But even if one conceded Lee’s military prowess, he would still be responsible for the deaths of hundreds of thousands of Americans in defense of the South’s authority to own millions of human beings as property because they are black. Lee’s elevation is a key part of a 150-year-old propaganda campaign designed to erase slavery as the cause of the war and whitewash the Confederate cause as a noble one. That ideology is known as the Lost Cause, and as historian David Blight writes, it provided a “foundation on which Southerners built the Jim Crow system.”

There are unwitting victims of this campaign—those who lack the knowledge to separate history from sentiment. Then there are those whose reverence for Lee relies on replacing the actual Lee with a mythical figure who never truly existed.
As the historian James McPherson recounts in Battle Cry of Freedom, in October of that same year [1864], Lee proposed an exchange of prisoners with the Union general Ulysses S. Grant. “Grant agreed, on condition that blacks be exchanged ‘the same as white soldiers.’” Lee’s response was that “negroes belonging to our citizens are not considered subjects of exchange and were not included in my proposition.” Because slavery was the cause for which Lee fought, he could hardly be expected to easily concede, even at the cost of the freedom of his own men, that blacks could be treated as soldiers and not things. Grant refused the offer, telling Lee that “Government is bound to secure to all persons received into her armies the rights due to soldiers.” Despite its desperate need for soldiers, the Confederacy did not relent from this position until a few months before Lee’s surrender.
Lee had beaten or ordered his own slaves to be beaten for the crime of wanting to be free, he fought for the preservation of slavery, his army kidnapped free blacks at gunpoint and made them unfree—but all of this, he insisted, had occurred only because of the great Christian love the South held for blacks. Here we truly understand Frederick Douglass’s admonition that "between the Christianity of this land and the Christianity of Christ, I recognize the widest possible difference."

Re: About Confederate Statues . . .

Posted: Thu Aug 17, 2017 10:18 pm
by MajGenl.Meade
Thanks, Econo. All of that has been available in history books for quite some time but that's an excellent summary.

It also contains the revealing truth about those people (white) who deify Lee - whether to the extent of rioting over a statue or secretly and quietly believing as Lee did (and voting accordingly, pointing to inner cities everywhere and tut-tutting):
Privately, according to the correspondence collected by his own family, Lee counseled others to hire white labor instead of the freedmen, observing “that wherever you find the negro, everything is going down around him, and wherever you find a white man, you see everything around him improving.”
That's the base opinion of Trump's base.

Re: About Confederate Statues . . .

Posted: Fri Aug 18, 2017 12:28 am
by Big RR
I have no doubt that Lee was a racist; I sincerely doubt many could grow up in the south and not have those feelings--the north as well in mid 19th century America. Historians dispute his brilliance as a tactician, but he fought, and came close to winning (at the beginning) a war against a bigger, richer, and better equipped North, and I personally think that says something about his battlefield tactics, to say nothing of his ability to motivate his men. He also served the US well, fighting to considerable praise in the Mexican War and putting down the John Brown insurrection. Not to mention that Scott offered him command of the Army of the Potomac. He was well respected as an officer on both sides.

Does he serve a statue? Do other racists like Woodrow Wilson? Do other persons committing treason against the US like John Brown? Do the people who fought valiantly yet lost?

I personally don't care whether the statues are there or not; but let's not trash the reputation of a complex man when making that decision. There are many statues of other racists from even the 20th century like Woodrow Wilson) or other persons who militarily attacked the US (like John Brown). There are commanders who saw many of their troop skilled (like Grant) and some who fought brutally and let their men target civilians (like Sherman), because such are the ways of war. Lee was far from perfect, but from what I can see he was a complex man who gave his all to a stand that was made for complex reasons (and not just to perpetuate slavery, although he certainly had to know that was part of what the Confederacy entailed).

And if we are going to move them, let's do it like Baltimore did, quietly, and place them elsewhere; they don't need to be outside the state capitol building, but let's not destroy them. And when we discuss any of those in the past, let's realize that most people are not like comic book heroes or villains, they are far more complex and have both good and bad within them.

Re: About Confederate Statues . . .

Posted: Fri Aug 18, 2017 9:03 am
by Econoline
Image

Re: About Confederate Statues . . .

Posted: Fri Aug 18, 2017 5:15 pm
by ex-khobar Andy
In the end it's the victors who install the statuary. There is no doubt that, for example, Osama bin Laden was a master tactician and motivator, and that his 19 followers who flew the planes on 9/11 were brave young men by anybody's standards. They were willing to put their lives on the line for what they believed to be a just cause. But of course (and, in case anyone is in any doubt, rightfully) we do not celebrate him or them.

There is a good piece in today's NYT about the destruction of monuments. Just seen that Bannon is out so will curtail this post for now.

Re: About Confederate Statues . . .

Posted: Fri Aug 18, 2017 8:25 pm
by Burning Petard
Human beings are marching in the streets of the USofA with flags of Nazi Germany waving over them. They want the confederate statues to stay.

That is the only data point I need for me to say the statues must go. I have found NO reference to any of these statues erected other than in times of social conflict during rising political power of minorities, long after the federal reconstruction period was over.

The really funny thing is that the KKK of today has no historical connection to the Federal Reconstruction period. Today's version came from a bunch of (Bannon's clowns) wanting to imitate the Hollywood fiction they saw on the screen in 'Birth of a Nation.'

snailgate

Re: About Confederate Statues . . .

Posted: Fri Aug 18, 2017 8:59 pm
by rubato
Image

As Brad DeLong put it. "the purpose of the statues was for the white racists to say to the blacks, Grant's armies are gone, and we're still here." (paraphrased) It is high time for them and the stars and bars to be taken down.


yrs,
rubato

Re: About Confederate Statues . . .

Posted: Fri Aug 18, 2017 9:54 pm
by Econoline
ex-khobar Andy wrote:In the end it's the victors who install the statuary.
OTOH (you—and maybe a couple of others here—probably know this, Andy) there is a statue of George Washington in Trafalgar Square in London.
Image
It wasn't put there until 1924, so presumably by then there was enough of a historical perspective (e.g., WW1) to permit an overall evaluation of the man's life and accomplishments.

Re: About Confederate Statues . . .

Posted: Sat Aug 19, 2017 3:45 pm
by Big RR
Perhaps the time has come to remove all statues of persons from public lands, leaving the remembrances to private parks, etc? I fill realize that most of the statues in question were erected by racists to make a statement, but IMHO that doesn't make a difference (anymore than Jim's assertion that the Redskins name was originally intended as a tribute to Native Americans does). all that matters is the offense they cause today. And I do not think a government should be maintaining monuments that cause offense to a portion of their populace; but then what do we say to people who are offended (rightly or wrongly) by a statue of Martin Luther King, or Malcom X, or Nixon, or Clinton, or Reagan? Once we open the door (and maybe it should be opened), where do we draw the line? Maybe we'll just have to remove these moments from public lands altogether; it would make it easier.

Re: About Confederate Statues . . .

Posted: Sat Aug 19, 2017 5:20 pm
by Burning Petard
Who is buried in Grant's tomb? I think public monuments eventually become part of the landscape background and very little attention is given except perhaps by tourist guides. In your various trips to Manhatten, any of you stop and pay tribute to this American General? And yes, it is a trick question, because Mrs. Grant is also buried there. The semiotics of the monument can change. When I first saw Napoleon's tomb, my immediate thought was "Wow, the French certainly want to make sure he never gets out of there!"

Most of these monuments were financed by some 'civic minded' private organization for their own purposes. They persuade the local politicos at the time that the monument is a good thing and posterity is blessed or burdened forever with the result. I suggest one ponder the statue of the fictional Rocky Balboa that resides before the entrance to the Philadelphia Art Museum. Is the sculpturer someone of note, perhaps another Rodin or Michelangelo? Is the subject the most memorable thing (or even the top 25) that happened in Philadelphia? Is the statue itself artistically extraordinary?

snailgate

Re: About Confederate Statues . . .

Posted: Sat Aug 19, 2017 7:14 pm
by Big RR
I've always hated that Rocky statue outside the Art Museum; a blatant publicity move for the movie series with no artistic merit at all IMHO.

Then again, I have seen many people stopping to photograph or take a picture with it, so I may well be in the minority.

Re: About Confederate Statues . . .

Posted: Sat Aug 19, 2017 9:20 pm
by BoSoxGal
It's inspiring, if you know the story. That's a statue I could certainly imagine future generations might someday remove.