National Trust For Historic Preservation on Confederate Memorials

[Pvt Schnapps]

From June: https://savingplaces.org/press-cente...s#.WZSdRVGQyM8

In recent months, many communities have been vigorously debating anew the impact, meaning, and propriety of Confederate memorials and symbols in the public space. We have received questions from across the political spectrum about our stance on this.

At the National Trust, we believe that historic preservation requires taking our history seriously. We have an obligation to confront the complex and difficult chapters of our past, and to recognize the many ways that our understanding, and characterization, of our shared American story continues to shape our present and future.

That goes for the Civil War, our nation�s bloodiest and most divisive conflict, as well. There are currently hundreds of monuments to the Confederate cause in America. They exist in 31 states, including far-flung places such as Massachusetts, Pennsylvania, Arizona, and Montana. Schools and streets all over America bear Confederate names.

While some of these monuments were erected shortly after the war by grieving Southern families to honor the valor of fallen leaders and loved ones, many more were put in place for a more troubling purpose. Decades after the war, advocates of the Lost Cause erected these monuments all over the country to vindicate the Confederacy at the bar of history, erase the central issues of slavery and emancipation from our understanding of the war, and reaffirm a system of state-sanctioned white supremacy.

Put simply, the erection of these Confederate memorials and enforcement of Jim Crow went hand-in-hand. They were intended as a celebration of white supremacy when they were constructed. As recent rallies in Charlottesville and elsewhere illustrate, they are still being used as symbols and rallying points for such hate today.

We should always remember the past, but we do not necessarily need to revere it.

These Confederate monuments are historically significant and essential to understanding a critical period of our nation�s history. Just as many of them do not reflect, and are in fact abhorrent to, our values as a diverse and inclusive nation. We cannot and should not erase our history. But we also want our public monuments, on public land and supported by public funding, to uphold our public values.

Ultimately, decisions about what to do with offending memorials will be made on a case by case basis at the community level. Some memorials can be moved, others altered, and others retained as seen fit. Whatever is decided, we hope that memorials that remain are appropriately and thoughtfully �re-contextualized� to provide information about the war and its causes, and that changes are done in a way that engage with, rather than silence, the past--no matter how difficult it may be.

We should always remember the past, but we do not necessarily need to revere it. As communities work to determine the appropriate balance, we hope they move forward in a transparent, deliberative, and inclusive way that embraces the complexity here, examines many possible alternatives, and allows for a thoughtful community dialogue that gives all sides a chance to be heard.

[Rob Weaver]

Bravo, Schnapps. To flip the expression: "when history conflicts with mythology, print the history."

[rbruno68]

I would like to ask a honest question and do not intend to start or engage in a keyboard war because I really have no interest in that. In this debate of taking down monuments and especially in the eyes of the people that want them removed, is it possible for a person to support keeping the monuments where they are and not be a racist or a white supremacist?
Rob

[johnduffer]

In this debate of taking down monuments and especially in the eyes of the people that want them removed, is it possible for a person to support keeping the monuments where they are and not be a racist or a white supremacist?
Rob

I'm in favor of leaving the monuments alone and I'm not racist or Nazi. As far as in the eyes of those who want them removed I'm not so sure. I don't think history is all that closely scrutinized and the general feeling is the CSA invented slavery and all confederates, even conscripts, adventurers, 'I'm enlisting because all my neighbors are going and it'll be over by Christmas anyway', et al, must have been skinhead racists fighting to oppress others. Robert E. Lee is the same as the Grand Wizard of the KKK. Maybe in another fifty years or so Asian Americans will demand destruction of Korean and Vietnam War monuments since obviously all the soldiers must have been American Imperialist Lackeys. Shorter term I don't see how much longer George Washington can fly under the radar.

[NMVolunteer]

I would like to ask a honest question and do not intend to start or engage in a keyboard war because I really have no interest in that. In this debate of taking down monuments and especially in the eyes of the people that want them removed, is it possible for a person to support keeping the monuments where they are and not be a racist or a white supremacist?
Rob

I think it is a matter of proper context for the monuments, which depends entirely on what they are, who they celebrate/memorialize, and where they are located. A blanket "keep them all" feels just as short-sighted as a blanket "get rid of them all".

[johnduffer]

I think it is a matter of proper context for the monuments, which depends entirely on what they are, who they celebrate/memorialize, and where they are located. A blanket "keep them all" feels just as short-sighted as a blanket "get rid of them all".

I agree that should be the case but in fact it won't be. The statue of a confederate soldier in the square of Franklin, Tennessee was erected in 1899 by the Daughters of the Confederacy, one of their inscriptions:

"Would not it be a shame for us
If their memory part from our land and hearts,
And a wrong them to and a shame to us.
The glories they won shall not wane for us.
In legend and lay, our Heroes in Grey
Shall ever live over again for us."


Last night this monument as well as the Carter House and Carnton Plantation had to have police patrols because of threats of destruction due to some nazi loving idiot crashing his vehicle into a crowd in another state. Arthur MacArthur took multiple wounds in the Carter House yard but now it should be burned down to stop white supremacists. yeah, that seems reasoned and well thought out.

[Pvt Schnapps]

Bravo, Schnapps. To flip the expression: "when history conflicts with mythology, print the history."

Just to clarify, the text in my post came from the National Trust, not me. I've said more than enough already...

[Tarheel57]

The sole Confederate monument in Massachusetts, on the site of Fort Warren, a Civil war prison on Georges Island, has been boarded over and the state seeks to remove it. The marker simply states:

"During the war between the states, 1861-1865
more than a thousand confederates
were imprisoned here of whom thirteen died

[List of names]

This marker placed in their memory by the
Boston chapter United Daughters of the Confederacy
1963"

The marker is located on the actual historical site, which is a National Historic landmark. The Governor of Mass. Governor Baker has justified it's removal by saying that "we should refrain from the display of symbols, especially in our public parks, that do not support liberty and equality for the people of Massachusetts." The monument has the Seal of the Confederate States of America on it. But why not remove the seal? Or replace the marker with one not bearing the seal? To me, simply removing the entire marker smacks of erasing history.

[Jim Mayo]

The sole Confederate monument in Massachusetts, on the site of Fort Warren, a Civil war prison on Georges Island, has been boarded over and the state seeks to remove it. The marker simply states:

"During the war between the states, 1861-1865
more than a thousand confederates
were imprisoned here of whom thirteen died

[List of names]

This marker placed in their memory by the
Boston chapter United Daughters of the Confederacy
1963"

The marker is located on the actual historical site, which is a National Historic landmark. The Governor of Mass. Governor Baker has justified it's removal by saying that "we should refrain from the display of symbols, especially in our public parks, that do not support liberty and equality for the people of Massachusetts." The monument has the Seal of the Confederate States of America on it. But why not remove the seal? Or replace the marker with one not bearing the seal? To me, simply removing the entire marker smacks of erasing history.

You forget where it is located, Liberalville.

I think people have gone crazy.

[NMVolunteer]

I've said it on other websites, but I suspect that people were so fed up over the Jim Crow statues, that they are now taking it out on all Confederate statues and memorials.