Charlottesville

[L Verge]

Jaimie Kinder - I don't know how I failed to see your excellent post this morning (maybe because I spent most of my day fielding comments - most of them angry - about the current situation). I just want to thank you for eloquently stating the case for many and to encourage you to continue teaching history. Having been there and done that, I know that it can be a very difficult profession; but we desperately need good teachers, especially in the field of history and the humanities, to instill core values in our future voters.

Just have to add that I generally do not have visitors come directly into my office at Surratt House, but I am having it now. I had an especially upset family from California today that cannot believe what is going on in America. They don't know their ancestry well enough to know if any ancestors fought in the War Between The States, so basically they have no irons in the fire. However, they are very concerned about the direction that this particular issue is pushing us into. These were clean-cut, intelligent people (not an angry mob type), and one of the best spokesmen in the family was a smart young man of about 19 or 20. That gave me hope that there are millions of others like him out there.

[JJamiekinder]

Thank you Laurie! We do live in interesting times to say the least. The one thing that I think is important to keep in mind is that regardless of what side all of us fall on concerning the current situation, is how important it is to have an intellectual and peaceful dialogue; even if that gets spirited at times. Sometimes I think that we forget that and the moment we stop listening to each other and the perspectives of others are taken for granted is the moment societies begin to decline. Lets hope Americans can learn from Charlottesville and not get caught up in the extremes of hate and prejudice that always seem to rear their ugly head when a true conversation about our history should be at the forefront and not hijacked by those who really do not understand our nations past. And thank you Roger for allowing us a forum to do so. Onward and upward!

[My Name Is Kate]

Both the JJamiekinder post on this forum and the BoothiebarnDave post (on another forum) are excellent and thought-provoking. I have a few comments to make about the latter post.

To say that the Charlottesville counter-protesters were unquestionably on the side of right, is to assume that you know their motives for protesting. But you do not even know for a fact that some or most of the counter-protesters weren't there only because someone had paid them to be there (in fact, that may also be why some of the protesters were there, for all we know). Most of the counter-protesters were white, from what I saw. I watched several videos of that riot, and there is no question that there was a good deal of hatred and violence on both sides. Some of them came armed with various weapons. I didn't see anyone on either side making the slightest effort to engage in thoughtful debate with the other side. It was bestial. It reminded me of documentaries I have watched about fights to the death between lions and hyenas.

The slippery slope argument has validity. I agree with Dave that it should not have validity, but not all human beings are rational or knowledgeable about history, and there are often hidden agendas. Already there is talk about blowing up Mount Rushmore and defunding the Jefferson Memorial. How much more obvious can it be that the real goal of some of these people is to destroy the foundation of this country?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gg4XKIX1bs4

Meanwhile, the murders among black Americans continue unabated in Chicago, but that receives very little press and apparently is of little or no interest to the same people who are up in arms about what an insult certain statues are to some Americans. What are Sharpton and Jackson doing about the murders? What did Obama ever do about Chicago and the inner cities? What did the Democrats/liberals or Republicans/conservatives ever do about it? Anything? (I intend those as real questions, not rhetorical ones.) Why is it that so many people, both black and white, are only outraged by white-on-black crime, or white-on-black injustices? It sure seems that many black people hate white people indiscriminately, and that that hatred is a much stronger motivator than any love they may have for black people. And the white people...what are they trying to prove? Are they so afraid of black people that they will do anything to try to prove that they are in complete solidarity with them (even in violence), in the hope that they will then be given a pass for being born white? Do they want to disassociate themselves completely from any injustices perpetrated by whites because they can't come to terms with the knowledge that they may also have somewhere within themselves the capability to commit such injustices? If I had been born in the South (or in the North, for that matter) in the 18th or 19th century, I have little doubt that I would have, at the least, tolerated slavery. I probably would have gone to church and read the Bible and never thought twice about the incongruity between my professed religious beliefs and my attitude toward slavery. And if I had been born a slave in that time period, and I had finally been granted my freedom, who knows but that I would have turned right around (as some former slaves did) and become a slaveholder myself.

I personally have never quite felt comfortable with building monuments to human beings. Any human beings. The word "idolatry" comes to mind. I don't really have strong feelings about it, and I do appreciate the beauty of some of the monuments, and some are even awe-inspiring (like Mount Rushmore, if only because of the sheer size of it). But if people are going to be hypocritical about their motives for wanting the Confederate statues removed, I think maybe it is best that they remain standing.

[Eva Elisabeth]

(08-19-2017 01:17 AM)My Name Is Kate Wrote:  I personally have never quite felt comfortable with building monuments to human beings. Any human beings. The word "idolatry" comes to mind. I don't really have strong feelings about it, and I do appreciate the beauty of some of the monuments, and some are even awe-inspiring (like Mount Rushmore, if only because of the sheer size of it). .

I often feel the same - especially as for leaders/politicians/kings etc. In this field there's such a small step between mere acknowledgement/teaching of someone's meaning in history and the said idolatry. I put up better with statues of some genius in the field of arts or science, like Shakespeare or Goethe, as I don't feel those idolize the entire human but an outstanding "creative"/"productive" talent that produced some THING everlasting, timeless. Shakespeare's work or Beethoven's music will always remain and inspire the way they are, while politics/ideologies change and kingdoms vanish.
(Well, the creative geniuses set the monuments for themselves: https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=eMY3ivdNzwE - like Beethoven's #9)

[Rsmyth]

First, I would just like to say that if everyone discussed things like the people on this board, the country would be in a better place.

Lastly, Laurie - I am honored that my position on this subject was known even prior to my posting.

[L Verge]

Yesterday, I mentioned receiving a commentary from a Life Member of the Surratt Society and a longtime student of the Civil War era. This gentleman, Arthur Candenquist (who gave me permission to publish his name), presented significant viewpoints mainly based around a website similar to this one that had published the administrator's position on the current affairs, but then closed it to further commentary.

His post to me was especially significant in that he cited codes of law that have been in place for years and should protect the statues. I had questioned whether such laws existed several days ago. I asked Arthur for permission to edit (de-personalize) his comments and publish them here. I also asked his approval of my edits before sending this on; he agreed to them. So, here are the thoughts of Arthur Candenquist regarding the statues and open vs. closed debate:

A serious historian is not afraid to debate or discuss the events and personalities of history, nor is a serious historian interested in presenting only his or her point of view regarding the events and personalities of the past, and disregarding the views, comments, and opinions of anyone who might have valid points to the contrary.

In this particular posting, in which the writer is clearly within his rights to express his opinions - and I would certainly defend his right to express his views - the fact that he has closed the possibility of anyone responding to his remarks shows me that he is not a true and dedicated historian. At the very least, he seems to overlook the simple fact that the monuments and memorials to those who served in the military land and sea forces of the Confederate States are protected not only by, in this particular case, the Code of Virginia, http://law.lis.virginia.gov/vacode/title...5.2-1812/, but are also clearly protected by U. S. Public Law 85-425, http://uscode.house.gov/statutes/pl/85/425.pdf ,which states clearly that those who served in the military land and sea forces of the Confederate States are deemed to be veterans of the wars fought in the United States. Virginia is not the only state or commonwealth in this country which has enacted laws to protect all monuments and memorials dedicated to those who served the Confederacy. The same laws and codes also protect any monument or memorial erected to honor the veterans of World War II and the Revolutionary War, the French & Indian War, and the war in Vietnam.

During the Continental Congress's discussions on independence in Philadelphia in late June, 1776, when votes were being taken to determine if a debate should be held, Stephen Hopkins, one of the representatives of the Colony of Rhode Island, cast the deciding vote to allow the debate on independence to move forward, stating that, "... in all my years, I've never heard, seen, nor smelled an issue that was so dangerous that it couldn't be talked about. Yes, I'm for debating anything."

One of the most pervasive and prevalent trains of thought which seems to have infected this country today on just about any issue open for debate is the general feeling by one side or another, "my mind is already made up; don't confuse me with the facts." As an historian who has studied the War Between the States for more than 60 years, the events and personalities of both sides, and the study of Lincoln's assassination, there have been many occasions when I encountered disagreements which ran counter to the facts as I perceived them. I have stepped back and considered the other alternatives, and in some cases, I have revised my views and opinions because I did not refuse to look at a personality or an event from a different perspective than mine.

One of the major concepts that I have come to embrace is that it is impossible to completely understand the events and the personalities of the Nineteenth Century (or of any particular period in history) unless those events and personalities are viewed through the context of when those events occurred and those personalities lived. It is impossible to understand anything about the War and of Lincoln's assassination when viewed through the context of the 21st Century.

The true historian must set aside the concepts, the values, and the opinions of his or her current point in time in order to fully understand the past. It is not an easy thing to do, and some "historians" will never accomplish this simple concept which must be followed in order to adequately and accurately interpret the past.

For most of the past 150 or so years, there has never been any issues or concerns with the monuments and memorials erected to the memory of those who served the Confederacy in the political, social, military, or economic arenas. We are now faced with civil unrest and civil disturbances in areas where none have existed before. The United States today is a result of events and personalities of our past, and, as you well know, those who do not learn from the mistakes of the past are doomed to repeat them in the future. At what point will other equally sacred and legally protected monuments and memorials to the people and events of the past be subject to eradication and destruction? At what point will all of the references to our past be eliminated because, at a particular moment in time, the concepts of the past don't happen to agree with the concepts of the present?

In my opinion, I believe members of our society do history a great disservice by refusing to see any other side of current events but their own, and I think they do themselves a great disservice by refusing to entertain any discussion about what is surely affecting not only the history of this country, but the manner in which it is portrayed, and will be portrayed in the future. "My mind is already made up---don't confuse me with the facts." Free and open debate without violence is at the core of our culture and the road to a well-educated populace.

---

I want to thank "My Name is Kate" for her above post. In my opinion, she has gotten to the crux of what is causing this upheaval in our country at the present time.

I would also like to paraphrase and ask "When will the sins of the fathers be lifted from the shoulders of the sons?"

[David Lockmiller]

(08-19-2017 06:09 AM)Eva Elisabeth Wrote:  

(08-19-2017 01:17 AM)My Name Is Kate Wrote:  I personally have never quite felt comfortable with building monuments to human beings. Any human beings. The word "idolatry" comes to mind. I don't really have strong feelings about it, and I do appreciate the beauty of some of the monuments, and some are even awe-inspiring (like Mount Rushmore, if only because of the sheer size of it). .

I often feel the same - especially as for leaders/politicians/kings etc. In this field there's such a small step between mere acknowledgement/teaching of someone's meaning in history and the said idolatry. I put up better with statues of some genius in the field of arts or science, like Shakespeare or Goethe, as I don't feel those idolize the entire human but an outstanding "creative"/"productive" talent that produced some THING everlasting, timeless. Shakespeare's work or Beethoven's music will always remain and inspire the way they are, while politics/ideologies change and kingdoms vanish.

I support the Lincoln Memorial. I like the idea of one man "standing" for a relatively short period of time in history and saving democracy for the world. Lincoln obviously did not save democracy and this nation alone. But were it not for him, both democracy and this nation would have been lost.

Charlottesville is a new example of an earlier time against which Lincoln vigorously protested: "By such examples, by instances of the perpetrators of such acts going unpunished, the lawless in spirit are encouraged to become lawless in practice; and having been used to no restraint but dread of punishment, they thus become absolutely unrestrained. Having ever regarded government as their deadliest bane, they make a jubilee of the suspension of its operations, and pray for nothing so much as its total annihilation. While, on the other hand, good men, men who love tranquility, who desire to abide by the laws and enjoy their benefits, who would gladly spill their blood in the defense of their country, seeing their property destroyed, their families insulted, and their lives endangered, their persons injured, and seeing nothing in prospect that forbodes a change for the better, become tired of and disgusted with a government that offers them no protection, and are not much averse to a change in which they imagine they have nothing to lose."

I recently saw on Charlie Rose actors and a director talking about stage performance and how the subtlety of great performance was the interaction between the actors showing all were living in the moment. From the time President-elect Lincoln left on the train from Springfield and bid farewell to his neighbors until his murder on Good Friday 1865, President Abraham Lincoln and those around him were always living in the moment. In that 1861 short speech to his Springfield neighbors, Lincoln noted that he had a "task before me greater than that which rested upon Washington." This was not an exaggeration and the "play" to last four years was just beginning.

As Shakespeare wrote: "All the world's a stage, And all the men and women merely players; They have their exits and their entrances, And one man in his time plays many parts."

Abraham Lincoln's final dominant role in life as President of the United States could not have been better played in my opinion. And, previously, as the antagonist debater of the man who would be President (Senator Douglas) on the issue of slavery, he had played a different role quite well, but thought at the time that his name would be forgotten forever after he lost that election. His own instructive role as a lawyer in frontier Illinois also was played very well, thanks in large measure to an assist from fellow "actor" Judge David Davis.

I often go by the Lincoln statue outside City Hall in San Francisco to pay my respects and reach up to touch the front of his shoe as so many others have also done. This spot on his metal shoe has been worn shiny over time, like the nose on the bust of Lincoln, created by Gutzon Borglum, in front of the Lincoln tomb in Springfield.

I think it better to leave all of the statues as they are now as a reminder of our past, lest we forget our history altogether. Recently, I saw that the statue of U.S. Supreme Court Justice Taney, who wrote the majority opinion in the Dred Scott decision, has been removed. Lincoln, the Illinois lawyer, argued publicly and forcefully against this decision at the time. I am sure that when most people pointed to the statue of Justice Taney, his Dred Scott opinion was not remembered as a point of honor in his favor.

On the other hand, when the Chronicle newspaper in Washington had the courage to speak well of "Stonewall" Jackson, accidentally shot, as a brave soldier, however mistaken as an American, Lincoln wrote to the editor: "I honor you for your generosity to one who, though contending against us in a guilty cause, was nevertheless a gallant man. Let us forget his sins over a fresh-made grave."

Much the same may be said of Confederate General Robert E. Lee who eventually commanded all of the Confederate forces against the Union forces. It is perhaps a little known fact that in December 1862, shortly after the battle of Fredericksburg, General Lee, as executor of his father-in-law's estate, fulfilled the duty he owed the Custis family slaves by executing a deed of manumission for them. General Lee also fought in a guilty cause, but was nevertheless a gallant man. Ironically, Robert E. Lee fought in behalf of a government that had as its basis the institution of slavery.

And, let us not forget what the Islamic State has done in terms of almost boundless suffering and destruction in the lives of the people of the region and elsewhere. In the "purity" of the religious belief of its Supreme Leader, Islamic State has destroyed much of the cultural and religious artifacts of man that were hundreds and even thousands of years old. These historical artifacts cannot be replaced in any true sense.

Religious purity and political purity are in the eyes of the beholder. Let us keep the historical artifacts and statues as a reminder of our own history. But let us never forget the facts of history because if we do forget that history, we will be doomed to relive the ugliest parts of that history.

[Thomas Kearney]

https://boothiebarn.com/2017/08/17/the-c...memorials/

Dave Taylor makes an excellent point in this blog post that should be a newspaper editorial.

[Eva Elisabeth]

Well said, David. (As for destruction I'd just like to add the examples of Mao' s cultural revolution and the Nazis' Kristallnacht.)

[L Verge]

Thank you, Mr. Lockmiller and Eva. We can also add quite a few other foreign attempts to destroy cultural history. I feel that both of you understand the necessity for remembering history and working to overcome the difficult parts - instead of wiping the reminders out of existence. And, offering one's opinion on historical topics, and then not agreeing to debate, is dangerous. That reminds me of the futility in trying to write Letters to the Editor in modern times, only to have them ignored.

I still want to know how these individual state and local leaders are getting away with ignoring U..S. laws? Kind of reminds me of the Winter of Secession and the debate as to whether states had the right to break away from the Union...

[My Name Is Kate]

Boothiebarn Dave's article had a link to a story about the vandalism to a Confederate statue in Durham, NC. Since that story was written by the Washington Post, it did not include a few pertinent details, so I will include them here.

The vandal who toppled the statue, Taqiyah Thompson, is a pro-North Korea, Marxist-Leninist activist who wants to abolish capitalism.

She said it was "the will of the people" to tear down that statue, "the people" being the group who stood by and watched her vandalism.

In a quote following her arrest, she equated the police who arrested her, to the KKK. She believes President Trump is also a KKK supporter and a fascist. Following her line of logic, Kim Jong Un would make a better leader of this country than Trump. Many people across the country who support her actions, agree with her logic. She is not at all atypical of many left-wing activists and the mainstream media.

http://dailycaller.com/2017/08/16/woman-...a-marxist/

[L Verge]

(08-20-2017 02:57 AM)My Name Is Kate Wrote:  Boothiebarn Dave's article had a link to a story about the vandalism to a Confederate statue in Durham, NC. Since that story was written by the Washington Post, it did not include a few pertinent details, so I will include them here.

The vandal who toppled the statue, Taqiyah Thompson, is a pro-North Korea, Marxist-Leninist activist who wants to abolish capitalism.

She said it was "the will of the people" to tear down that statue, "the people" being the group who stood by and watched her vandalism.

In a quote following her arrest, she equated the police who arrested her, to the KKK. She believes President Trump is also a KKK supporter and a fascist. Following her line of logic, Kim Jong Un would make a better leader of this country than Trump. Many people across the country who support her actions, agree with her logic. She is not at all atypical of many left-wing activists and the mainstream media.

http://dailycaller.com/2017/08/16/woman-...a-marxist/

Thank you for this information. Living in the DC area, we don't get these kinds of details on our regular news. I heard one mention of it on our local station and then they took to streaming it across the bottom - but with no background whatsoever.

[Gene C]

(08-20-2017 08:52 AM)Eva Elisabeth Wrote:  My question - why now (suddenly?)? Why not right after the war? And as for the statues - why have they been put up at all (after the war)?

My guess is that most people view history only through the events of their lifetime that they remember or experienced, adding to that what they remember their parents and maybe grandparents talking about.

Events of over 100 years ago are irrelevant to them. The people involved, the events that occurred have little or no bearing on their lives. They are just stories.

[L Verge]

For nearly a decade right after the war, the conquered Southern states were under federal and military control, so such efforts at recognizing their native sons would have been near to impossible. The creation of most of these statues came after their rights were returned to the Southern states. It was a way of taking back their lives and their dignity, imo.

The second wave of statues have a little less "respectability" in my mind because they came about in the 1900s as an answer to the growing civil rights movement. If we uphold the principles of free speech, however, works of art or sentiment can take the place of words in many cases.

[Gene C]

On the BoothieBarn article regarding Confederate statues, is a chart regarding the dates and numbers of these statues erected. I think the conclusions drawn from that chart are misleading.

The article states this - "But two distinct periods saw significant spikes. The first began around 1900 as Southern states were enacting Jim Crow laws to disenfranchise African Americans and re-segregate society after several decades of integration which followed Reconstruction. It lasted well into the 1920s, a period that also saw a strong revival of the Ku Klux Klan. The second period began in the mid-1950s and lasted until the late 1960s, the period encompassing the modern civil rights movement."

- I would like to note that many of the statues and monuments to Union soldiers were also erected during this same time period. Many of the soldiers for both sides had recently died and typically we don't build statues or monuments to the living. The Lincoln Memorial was built during this time period, 1914-1922
- The second time period of the 1950's and 60's coincides with the 100th anniversary of the Civil War. There was a heightened awareness and attention to the Civil War during that time period. More monuments raised, more books written, more TV and movies about the time period were produced, much like there were during the recent 150 year anniversary.

The numbers on the chart can be viewed from this additional perspective. The data can be interpreted more than one way. I guess it depends on the agenda you want to emphasize.

But for those who are organizing and leading the effort to remove Confederate monuments, why is the focus on a negative interpretation for the message of the monuments instead of a positive message that is also there. Why does the focus seem to be more on removing and tearing down than it is on encouragement, inspiration, lifting up and building new?
Maybe that's not really a message that is important to them.