EDITORIAL COMMENTS:

Originally published August 2017 · p. 21

EDITORIAL COMMENTS: Over the last few years, there has been an alarming rise in the vandalism, removal, and destruction of historic statuary. Despite widespread, even worldwide, condemnation, small groups driven by their own agendas have persisted in the ruination of monumental art honoring past figures. There appears to be no end in sight despite calls for the extermination of those destroying local and regional historic art and artifacts. Before the expected howls of indignation attack Civil War News for making such a claim, let me point out that this paragraph references the activities of Daish (aka ISIS, ISIL) and the Taliban. The moral outrage mentally expressed upon reading the first three sentences is compelling in today’s American South where similar activity is presently underway. The interesting thing is that, unlike the early Jewish, Christian, and Islamic destruction of predecessors’ holy sites, the current activity in the American South and the Middle East is not replacing the destroyed or removed artifacts with anything. They are not even co-opting the site or the imagery; they are destroying it. To what purpose? The unintended consequences are intriguing. If the intent is only to remove memorials, does that mean removal is an attempt to eliminate a part of history folk feel uncomfortable with, don’t like, or say isn’t true? That approach is fallacious because history doesn’t change, interpretations of history do. What is worrisome is that the monuments could, and should serve as talking points about the past that might educate thinking people about past eras. This doesn’t seem to be happening and this is noteworthy because one of the most recent horrific episodes of human history, the Holocaust, IS remembered at several death and labor camps, precisely so genocide will not happen again. That educational aspect seems missing in the effort to remove Confederate memorials but not deal with the past they represent. Not replacing memorials with some other historical commemoration heightens the sense of history lost, ignored, or rewritten. Is it because those trying to change things have no heroes, or worse, no sense of the past except that they feel uncomfortable with things that call up the past? Removing monuments in the interest of “diversity” is actually doing the exact opposite because removal means eliminating a segment of the past reflected by the memorials. This interpretation is reinforced by the lack of any materials presenting a counter viewpoint. The well-meaning morally justified folk going after memorials related to regional history need to be careful. Some of their activity is driven by personal egos and their attempts to generate controversy, and possibly votes, by stirring up trouble. Others, well-meaning, are acting out of concern that some statues seem to represent abhorrent individuals from another era, but their choices are very selective. It is clear that this movement to remove memorialization relating to the 1861-1865 era is selective and reflects a clear cut line of reasoning that ignores that totality of the past. For example, did some of today’s people of color have slave owning ancestors? There are two lines following this question because some modern people of color had ancestors who fought for the Confederacy just as some Southerners fought for the Union. Did people of color own slaves? Did people of color volunteer to be enslaved? The answer to these questions is yes. The range of human activity is wide and far reaching. Selectively removing one historical element to suit a group’s viewpoint ignores this. There are likely to be unintended consequences. If removing statues of slave owners is the goal, what happens when the more powerful or more numerous politically correct, start calling for all memorials of slave holders or opposition leaders to be removed? Where does the list end? With men from the 1861-1865 era or much further back? Will the Washington monuments and Jefferson memorials be next? Will the Betsy Ross flag and the Star Spangled Banner be replaced because they flew over slave states? What of monuments on battlefields that commemorate the bravery of a state’s citizens in a cause that stirred the nation to make incredible sacrifices. Will the Guilford Courthouse National Military Park statue of Continental Army Gen. Nathanael Greene, a Rhode Islander, be removed because he was a slave owner? Will people call for the removal of the Sgt. Richard Kirkland statue at Fredericksburg because he fought against the United States? A contrary viewpoint is that if people of color want statues of Nat Turner in public places how will they be received by others who had ancestors murdered by Mr. Turner? Or will that reflect the notion that “one man’s terrorist is another man’s freedom fighter.” Diversity means different views but not the exclusion of another’s viewpoint.

Larry Babits Civil War News Editor