Controversial, emotional, and something that we need to talk about. And from time to time when ive done this panel with friends and colleagues, ive called it on or off their pedestals. The debate over statues, memorials, memory and meaning. And i discussed this topic maybe twice or three times with edna medford and it is evolving even between us as we proceed over a year and a half. A and its a pleasure to welcome not only edna medford, but also liz varon and Gary Gallagher to join the discussion. Memorials in 22 states and the district of columbia, 110 have him and been removed in the past few years. And three new ones have been built. So its good to have the opportunity to take a snapshot. At best, it will be a snapshot. And i think we all have to agree that however we feel about art, iconography, memorials, icons, history, american heroes and american villains alike, that him and the controversy over statues and memorials not only attributes to confederates in the south, but also to those, for example, and i will show you some images in a few minutes, honoring historical figures in new york state continues at a high kind of boil. I would like to show you some images and let me start with this one. Him him this is my opening slide to suggest the iconoclasm is not new. Im not suggesting that we can blame all of this on charlton heston, but [laughter] harold but moses did destroy the golden calf, and maybe thats where iconoclasm started. But it had more recent manifestations. The balmy on buddhas nearly 140 miles from kabul stood until the early 20th century. They were destroyed and now they him and him andthey were destroyed and now they are being rebuilt in silicone. So, iconoclasm is sometimes reversible, but not something we should consider. Him and this is, on the right, a statue of the egyptian pharaoh. This is even earlier than the buddhas. This is 1500 bc. When she, who dressed as a he, left the throne, all of the statues were destroyed. Those pieces were gathered. The head was found in her collection in berlin, and now its reunited at the met. Him and its reunited at the met. So again, reversals. Him so again, reversals. Here are some heads that were destroyed and thrown into the sand by iconic lasts that once adorned notre dame. Again, heres one thats controversial and remains so. This is a juden cell sculpture, where Martin Luther preached. Its jews suckling on a pig. Its an antisemitic statue. Many people are calling for it to be removed on its 500 birthday while others say its a matter of history and theres a plaque nearby that adds context by apologizing for its ancient spew of hatred. Iconoclasm is not new to the him and him andiconoclasm is not new to the the United States. These are the colonists in new york city ripping down the statue of george the third hours after the declaration of independence was first read in new york city, i think july 14. And on and on. Ill do these quickly. Jefferson once stood in front of the white house. He no longer does. George washington, known as georgie, stood outside the capital. Lincoln looked at this figure as he was inaugurated twice. It was considered unseemly later. It in the basement of the smithsonian. Statutory hall is no longer permanent. California thought its favorite son should be, start king. Theres someone who does. Well, youre from california. Who is there now . Ronald reagan. Again, the impermanence of memorials. Stalin statues didnt do very well. John wilkes booth was once in the rotunda until people thought it was inappropriate. And, of course, we will circle back eventually to lee in richmond, and im sure gary will talk a bit about charlottesville, the infamous night in charlottesville. I was there when this statue was dedicated in richmond. It looks benign enough. Him andit looks benign enough. Its lincoln and ted visiting richmond, supposedly, and 1865. And this is the demonstration that occurred on the day it was dedicated. I showed you lee. In richmond, of course, the great series of statues as great art. Some of them are great. This one is great. Some of them are not. Jefferson davis. And some of the responses are not. Arthur ashe, for example, at the end of monument avenue. Then we get to the recent period where these statues have been removed. Mayor landrieu had statues removed in new orleans. Here are some other removal work being done. Roger tony once stood this may not be that statue, but he once stood in front of the statehouse in annapolis. Him and him and and right next to it was thurgood marshall. [laughter] harold what is more powerful . What is more powerful, the just a position of a man who said black people could not be citizens and have no rights which a white person is bound to respect, next to the man who became the first africanamerican on the Supreme Court . Or just marshall without that back story of what has happened since dred scott . Anyway, well talk about that. Removals. And, of course, durham, where statues were pulled down. The generic statues of soldiers. This is the dedication of that statue, as you can see, a big deal. And here is what became of it when students got their hands on that statue. How do people confront some of the statues today if they dont pull them down . This one is pretty high up. Well, they managed graffiti on this silent sentinel. And heres another statue that has been marked up. In new york city, we have a statue of theodore roosevelt, an africanamerican, and a native american together, the subject of quite a bit of controversy for the last couple of years. In albany, we have Daniel Chester frenchs hand in the statue of sheridan. And there are people who would like that statue removed from albany. Thomas pauls statue of lincoln and an enslaved person rising or kneeling, depending on your interpretation, has been in washington since 1876. Him him and all of the money raised for this statue was contributed by friedman, and Frederick Douglass gave the brilliant address. But there are those who are discomforted by it. In new york, we recently proposed the first statue of a woman in central park. Him him the only women in central park are mother lewis and alice in wonderland. They dont count as history statues. Now theres Elizabeth Anthony and katie stanton. That does not include the africanamerican contributions to suffrage. Now people say Sojourner Truth should not be with those two women because their attitudes on suffrage were retrograde. One answer or one solution or one approach we might consider is new statues. This is an extraordinary equestrian statue that appeared in times square in new york. It is destined for richmond. Him and him andit is destined for richmond. It is 27 feet high, called rumors of war. It shows its a classical composition, but the writer is wearing dreadlocks and a hoodie and its going to the Virginia Museum of fine arts. Harold walker has done a riff on the statue of Queen Victoria in front of buckingham palace. Jets emerging from the breasts of the statue, the jugular spouts water. And this is rather an him andand this is rather an extraordinary work of art. So build we must is another approach. Heres a statue of columbus in new york city that now bears a pair of bloodied hands to represent columbus approach to native peoples. And thats just a little bit of what is going on around the country. So, i guess the basic question id like to ask is, as an historian, as a human being, should we build . Should we reconsider or contextualize . But lets start with edna. [laughter] edna you know, im a person of color first. Im a historian second. When let me briefly give you a background of my experience with the confederate monuments. I grew up outside of richmond. Him himi grew up outside of richmond. And whenever i went to richmond and i had to travel up monument avenue, i had to deal with those monuments there. And even as a child, i wondered what they were all about. And then as i got older and i realized that they were memorials to men who had fought a war that was intended to keep my people enslaved, it became very difficult for me to appreciate it from any kind of artistic perspective or historical. And so, as a person of color, i dont think that its enough to contextualize because people are not going to stop and read whats on a plaque if its on a monument, its on monument avenue or some other place. I say remove them, take them down, put them in a museum, and contextualize them there. I dont believe in destroying history, but history doesnt have to be in my face all the time, and its early doesnt have to be on public lands that i am helping my taxes are helping to pay for. If its in someones home, its on someones personal property, thats their business. But if its a public space, it should not be there if im expected to maintain it. Harold and liz, from both you and gary, know charlottesville well. Liz i would say i agree with edna, having observed this trauma in charlottesville unfold and the origins of the confederate statues and on the intentions of those who erected them, and i can say a lot more about that. I think recontextualizing them in a museum setting, that is pedagogical and curated so that people can learn about context, is essential. Now, ive heard a range of arguments on the half of keeping the statues up. And theres a set of arguments that i respect very much, though i disagree, and a set of arguments that i think are very dangerous, and i think we have to distinguish between the two of them. The set of arguments that i disagree but respect, and ive heard friends and colleagues make this argument, that Something Like charlottesvilles lees statue shows that there is a direct line between the confederacy and its policies and jim crow segregation, and they can be used as teachable moments, teachable sort of props, to show that there was this direct connection, if properly contextualized. That, again, i see the merit of in the argument. But theres another kind of argument that you hear. And this is an argument made by recent defenders of these are statues in a recent Charlottesville Court case in an attempted to defend a 1909 law that prevents localities from taking statues down, and attempt to hold the city counselors financially liable. And the defenders in that context argued the statues had nothing whatsoever to do with race or slavery or White Supremacy and so on. You say its ludicrous someone would make that argument in the present moment, but people do. That argument is very different than the first one i made and we have to sort of stand up to that. These statues and charlottesville, the purpose of them was to promote the worshipful reverence of robert e. Lee and Stonewall Jackson. In a modern city, i dont see why some but he has to walk by them in the morning. Lets put them in a place where they can be curated. Gary this is something hard to deal with in a short period of time. What we do with the statue is a local issue, first of all. I dont think anyone who lives in tacoma, washington should have anything to say about statues and charlottesville, virginia. I think its a local issue. There should be a local process. Charlottesville took a careful approach toward what to do with the statues of lee and jackson. And that was they had public hearings. They had a range of witnesses who spoke at those hearings. They had a commission that sifted through the evidence and made a recommendation to the politicians in charlottesville. I think thats the way to go about that. As one who taught at the him university of virginia for 22 years and used the confederate memorial landscape as a teaching tool for all those 22 years, i find it somewhat distressing that we flatten out the memorial landscape and treat all of the statues as the same thing. Theyre not the same thing. Lee and jackson i would put together among the five major confederate related statues or monuments in charlottesville. They came much later. I dont even see them as confederate monuments. Those are much later. The people who spearheaded putting them up, one individual basically paid for them, a wealthy individual who put his stamp on charlottesville in many ways. There were three early ones. I think there were different purposes behind them. All of which are related to the confederacy, of course. Dont misunderstand what im saying. As liz said, you cannot separate. They really should just stop and spend their time doing Something Else because the two are inextricably linked and all you need to do is read what the confederate generation said it was up to. It was to uphold the slaveholding republic beyond the reach of Abraham Lincoln and william seward. But having said that, i think its important to approach the memorial landscape with an understanding that its more complex than reducing it to a simple is either people or its not people proposition. I think its more complicated than that. But ill just reiterate that i think its a local issue. Its a statue by statue issue that should be settled by the people who live in those places and not by people who live somewhere else. And in the end, charlottesville decided to take them down. Theres been litigation in virginia. It involves the state legislature because of the law saying you cannot remove war memorials. They argued about whether these are war memorials. The decision is yes. The legislature has changed. I would be stunned if they dont address this quickly. Ball will be back in charlottesvilles court, and at that point, probably, lee and jackson will come down. Not sure, but i think thats what will happen. But i think its appropriate its settled in charlottesville. I think its inappropriate that its settled on an ad hoc basis. I dont see any National Search to deal with this. The interest in these statues spiked. Ive seen it throughout my life. When i was a graduate student at the university of texas, ill stop just in a minute. There are a group of statues at one plaza at the university of texas that were funded by a confederate veteran, and there were statues of Jefferson Davis and of robert e lee along this one part of the campus. And those have become an issue. It flares up periodically and sort of dies down and flares up again. The arguments are always pretty much the same on the two sides, either in favor or against. In austin, those have come down now. Theyre in davis is in a museum, contextualized there as both edna and liz said they were in favor of doing. Harold i want to add some context about the museum alternative, because i think its unrealistic. Gary totally unrealistic. Harold we know that in richmond, the director of the multimuseum said that she does not want the burden of caring for the statues should they ever be should it ever be proposed that they be transferred to the museum. But the second reason is really a matter of scale and the physicality of the statues. The lee, maybe not so much the davis, which is probably not worth reserving, aesthetically. The lee and the jackson and the steward were meant to be seen from way down. What that means is that the artist who made them raked them in a way that they would look human or the animals would look alive from 100 feet below. If you put them at eye level with contextualization, they will look grotesque and they will look cartoonish and, artistically, its a mess. So i dont really believe the museum alternative will work. Private property, i mean, its unrealistic maybe. So, i think we should face the fact that these things are going to be pulverized or stored away, and thats a legitimate alternative, as well, if the contextualization alternative, which edna, you and i were discussing two years ago as a potential, but i understand the evolution of thought on it. Edna they cant be put in a park or something. Harold is anyone going to raise the money to build a pedestal or will they move the pedestal . Who wants the burden of putting Stonewall Jackson statute and the part if its already in the streets . Edna the point you raise, harold, also speaks to this option, potentially onsite contextualization. I think i agree the larger statues, finding a home is unlikely and if it has to be pulverized, so be it if there are no takers. That would be unavoidable. But the same scale of this achieves that makes it difficult to imagine moving them also makes it difficult to imagine contractual lysing them on site. It was sized and so on. Its hard to imagine what you can do to balance out that and lets be very clear about the fact that the location of the statues and the size of the statues was meant to send an unmistakable message to africanamericans that they would not get justice in the courthouse where their soldiers stood. They were not welcome in the public spaces downtown, in this case, the charlottesville neighborhood, where literally, africanamericans have been driven out of. These were reflections of the power structures that put them up and they had very overtly political messages that were unmistakable to people at the time. Harold i want to go to gary for a minute because id like to back up and try to conceptualize, or at least put in historical context, the motivation, the period, the wealth, and really the evolution of memory, how one wonders did confederate heroes, who were slaveholders and traders to the United States, become national paragons . Was it all wealth . And what was the political culture that proved so welcoming to these memorializations . And i know there were several periods of that. Gary there is a powerful reconciliation, as you mentioned, to the memory of the civil war. Theres a statue in front of the courthouse, a few dozen yards from the Stonewall Jackson near the courthouse. Its flanked by two napoleons. And those napoleons were donated to the city of charlottesville by United States government to be put on either side of the monument in front of the courthouse. Its a perfect way to talk with, and ill again put on my pedagogical hat here and talk about how these landscapes can be used to teach about memory. Its a wonderful way to show how two memory traditions are coming together, with the reconciliation tradition. Im going to disagree with liz on the possible utility of juxtaposing monuments to the existing monuments. I can see putting the monument in a small part where the lee statue is dedicated, who fought for the United States during the civil war. The old sense was that there were no black men who fought for the United States. Liz and i and others have worked in to identify weve identified more than two to 50 250 of them, 250 black men, fought for the United States in the civil war, put on blue uniforms and fought for the United States. I think it would be very illuminating, you have a statue to those black men, a few yards from the statue of robert e lee that would remind people that history is not a static thing and history often gives way to different memories of tradition. And theres one of them, the predominate leader of the defeated commander in the war, and here we are, 2020, and here are the men who fought in the units, several dozen of them, and here we are. This is what were looking at. That is there. I think most people dont understand the difference between history and memory. They get a blank look. And i think the eradication, the entire eradication of this memorial landscape actually would make it easier to forget some of the hard edges of United States history. There are hard edges, so deal with them. One way is to understand how different generations deal with memories of that event. I think there would be something lost in taking down what is lost. Liz again, the contextualizing or balancing liz again, its not impossible, but difficult when lee looms above the landscape in the way that he does. I think another statistic, that statistic of those 250 men who fought in the civil war in u. S. Ct regiments is important in our discovery of them is a reminder we are always learning new things about the civil war. Were trying to rethink local history. Theres a ct history that has gone unrecognized and raises interesting questions and possibilities. But Something Like that lee statute, again, remember, the purpose wasnt to say we all get our memories and traditions. It was meant to send a message that there was one right way to remember the south, only one. That was the orthodox way. As gary has put it, sort of cogently, that i quote this a lot, that the reconciliation tradition that gary alluded evolved a measure of capitulation to the lost cause tradition because there is a suggestion that they could share the moral high ground, northerners and southerners. So, the lee statue tells us a story of history and memory, but it also includes and distorts history in the sense that, just to give you the most powerful example, during the civil war in virginia, a la mora county was a black majority county. During td virginia Albemarle County was a black majority county. What does the statue tell us of that history . The statue is there to include and disappear that history. I agree that localities should have a process that deliberates and we should always consider the balancing and contextualizing option. About allwide open the things the statues hide and support distort. The history itself is one thing the statues hide in distort. They posit a Greater Unity in the south that ever existed. Than ever existed. Prof. Medford we could contextualize by putting them together. But if we do that, we are going to have to ensure we are teaching history differently from the way we are teaching it now. That favor the confederacy we are always going to look at that have problems. Gary i dont know which history books are written that way now. How about the one written by virginia students who was not a historian that got gary you it all wrong. Cant muzzle people who want to write books. We can if we are adopting those books for our children. That book went into the classroom. Harold this is the one that was researched online . Prof. Yes, by a nonhistorian, and she didnt know what she was saying about the war. Gary i want to come back to lizs point about this being a local this isnt just about the lee statue in trussville, its not just a charlottesville. Its not just a charlottesville thing or a virgina thing. It is a southern thing. It is one year before congress, at the instigation of a congressman from indiana made arlington the lee national memorial. Its one year before United States minted a . 50 piece for circulation that had lee and jackson on it, and a very positive take on confederate soldiers. Its much more than a local thing. Liz there is. Harold but people need to understand that. Liz absolutely. Its much broader than this. Much broader than this. Let me talk about one localitys effort to govern its own history of memory. So, i talked authoritatively and with some embarrassment about new york city and the last few years. When charlottesville happened, it was suddenly discovered after the statues had been there for 100 years, that the nyu hall of fame, which happens to be in the bronx at a college that is not nyu, but thats another story, had a lee and a jackson statue. So, the governor of new york ordered them removed. I have no clue what happened to those statues and i know the governor. But i dont know where they are and he wont tell me. [laughter] harold there was no discussion. There was no adjudication but , theyre gone. There was a lee avenue in brooklyn, leading to headquarters that robert ely used when he was stationed in new york. The name was changed. There is a tree that he had planted outside of the house where he had stayed, which was chopped down or uprooted, and then it turns out it was not the original tree. It was a replacement tree. [laughter] heres one other example. The mayor of new york established a statue and Memorial Committee to examine all of the statues built in new york city and determined which of them offended the public sensibility. They started talking about columbus and then the fight became huge, a bridge too far in new york city. So they focused on a statue outside the new york Gynecological Association [laughter] of dr. J beverly sims, a very interesting figure. He was a white doctor who invented a cure for some hideous postnatal condition, and saved innumerable women from such suffering that they often committed suicide as a result of developing this condition after childbirth. But dr. Sims experimented on developing this procedure on enslaved women, who were not empowered by law to give their consent. And he did not use anesthesia, which was repeatedly said that anesthesia was rare. Dr. Sims was moved, following protests by gynecologist on the site. So dr. Sims is now in greenwood cemetery, where hes buried, and that speaks to what you said, move it to a spot thats not in public view. This is at central park at about 105th street. Now there is a new condition thats creating new statuaries. The first lady of new york city, who was africanamerican, was the titular head of the commission. And they took, big mistake, public referendum is not a good idea when it comes to public art they took a straw vote on who deserves a public statue in new york. The winner, hands down, was mother cabrini. Does that ring a bell with anyone . Ok, good. Mother cabrini, charitable nun who was wonderful volunteer for disadvantaged people in new york, and a saint. The first lady decided that that was not a good idea, so she commissioned other statues of people of color. Well, you wouldve thought that they were going to do the equestrian statue of robert e lee in new york. So the governor ordered his own statue of mother cabrini and the city is building a statue of shirley chisholm, which is fine, Sojourner Truth, but people dont want Sojourner Truth with the women suffragists who are unsympathetic to women of color. It is a really great debate to be having, but it is fraught, and its also expensive in resolution. So, here i am, a proud new yorker, saying we really messed this up in new york and i dont know what the solution is except every once in a while, and unexpected and uncommissioned statue like the equestrian, pops up to rivet our attention and reminds us that public art, even in an age of cell phones and internet, and the promiscuity of images, Public Memorials really are important to people. And my own view, since im the only one who hasnt given a view, after working in an art museum for 23 years and benefiting from objects that have been discarded by other cultures or stolen from other cultures, i am just it pains me to see good works of art destroyed. Relocated is one thing. Destroyed is another thing. The buddhas was a tragedy to human memory, that the taliban thought they were offensive and they offended the taliban. Does that mean they deserved a or contacts with his destruction or contextualization. It worries me and concerns me that we are using this generation to take away memory. It if we do so irreparably may hurt the history of memory. Say, to refer to what edna and gary said about the context people have, what are the textbooks that would switch their framing and experience of the statues and what is our as garybility to teach has done in years of charlottesville in which these areas of Historic Sites are incorporated into a history lesson. We have to embrace this role of acting as curators and guides. We have to invite people to tap our expertise. We need to have these conversations in each and every case so we can arm ourselves. When you inform yourself sometimes you learn things that change your mind or change your view. In the case of the charlottesville statues i wanted to better understand the intentions of those who are wrecked of them so i read what was said at the dedication ceremonies and put that into the context of what was said at dedication ceremonies for confederate monuments around the south. The message is powerful. Kinds ofly three arguments remain at these dedication ceremonies and they were all racist arguments. Were very overtly claiming that the statues represented White Supremacy. You see this at the silent sam memorial and others. Sometimes they were using dog whistles. The speakers at the ceremonies were waxing nostalgic about the values of the old south it must in the slavery days or they were condemning reconstruction. They said the dark days of reconstruction would never come again, it was a tragic era of the worst crime, that is a racist argument because that is the one time where africanamericans had rights. The third thing you will see is dedication ceremonies in which they say mary a word about slavery, race, or africanamericans even in charlottesville where they were the majority and were not consulted about what statues put up. E the important thing is that the model gary has offered has competing memory traditions. One thing we need to do as we educate ourselves is look at how the memory traditions have returning in debates about confederate statues there were counter narratives and africanamericans criticizing them. Suggesting there was an alternate way to think about this history. Underscoringay of our intense responsibilities as educators. I felt that if i knew every visitor to charlottesville who was to look at every contextualized police statue would have an hour with edna and threeefore they were set free to draw other set free to draw their own conclusions i would be fine with that, but they will not do that. They may see these things and draw the entirely wrong conclusion about my city. Other countries have dealt with this differently. How did the germans deal with this . Erasure. Budapest there for discredited heroes. All the art they like for heroes they hate are in this tourist attraction. When st. Petersburg became leningrad the communist did not destroy peter the great although there was pressure to do so. It was boxed in a steelcase to present it being damaged during the nazi invasion. The myth in the city was that as long as peter stood the city would stand. Now it is a prime symbol of st. Petersburg. That was one decision almost made hastily that was not made hastily. I realize race is different. The european traditions gary i wanted to make a quick comment about how people view these. I think most people have no idea who is on a horse in lee park. Just before the outbreak in charlottesville katie couric was filming for a special she did on this issue that comes out later, crew and photographer katie couric was an undergraduate student at the university of virginia who lived on the lawn at the university of virginia which is right out from the rotunda. There were two plaques on the front of the rotunda, each of which has 250 uva graduates who died in Confederate Service during the war. They were still there, they are gone now. We asked i asked what she thought of these when she was living there and she said she never noticed them. I asked her what she thought of the lease statue and she said she had never heard of it. She is someone who was right there and the plaque was 70 yards from where she walked out her door. I think that is what most people think of these things until something flares up and then they think about the war. People le to pull pull people to see if they know who was on the horse there but i bet most people do not. I have a followup question but i want you to spend time thinking if you have a question you would like to address. We will handle some questions during the panel. Step up to the mic if you would like to join the discussion. [laughter] on second thought, cut off that mic. Please direct all questions to harold. [laughter] here is my question. Gail collins of the new york that historical figures, those portrayed in art should be judged by their main my lee, jefferson question is should there be a different standard for the imperfect National Founders and the secessionists who claimed in their own founding documents not only White Supremacy but that the next discussion will be about jefferson and washington. I reject the slippery slope argument. I think we can have the discussion about how jefferson and washington are different from secessionists and i argue that they are. They create this framework for the union that can be perfected and by the time the better its confederates come along thanks to the work of abolitionists and others the door has been cracked open to changing and envisioning an interracial society and the confederates come along and say they want to close this and change it and shut it forever. Difference between the people who conceptualize a union that could be perfected and a union where there would be Southern States if the concession us had their ways, my state of virginia would not be in the union in the United States of america if the confederates had one it would have been a very long time before slavery ended. There is a difference and that is an argument i invite and we can have all day. Lets remember that some of the confederates very much fashioned onto the revolutionary legacy and said they are the defenders of it. Others like Alexander Stevenson said that jefferson was ambivalent about slavery and he was wrong. We are not ambivalent in the confederacy. That is also a complicated question. I would say there is a difference. Ask questionso and limit the comments. I am going to try to ask a question. In terms of memorializing the confederates, can one of you or thethree of you speak to difference between memorializing a lee and Jackson Stewart versus the common soldier, the iconic confederate statues of the common soldier . Lee versus silent sam. I would not use silent sam as my example but i would speak to the difference that i see in charlottesville. There is the earliest of the confederate statues in charlottesville in the uva cemetery. It is in the midst of a part of the cemetery where there are more than 1000 confederate soldiers buried who died when uva was potentially turned into a confederate hospital early in the war. Monumentus behind that was the ladies memorial association, and later groups and confederate veterans. A kin to the as monuments you see in english villages that remember a lost generation of young men. It is still not separated from slavery but it is a very and aent kind of monument heroic quest or that an equestrian heroic statue of stonewall or lee which came decades later and has a different origin than the one in the uva cemetery at uva. I agree that we need to think that we should not conflate all of these periods of confederate memorials together and we have to be aware of the different settings and meanings. I think a cemetery is an for such a place statue and a Public Square is not. In general it would be difficult for me to make a distinction between the common soldier and a confederate leader if that common soldier is known to have fought against his country. What is happening is we are memorializing people who are traitors to the nation. Whether they were leaders or common soldiers. Thatrgument can be made the soldier during the war was only doing what he was told to do and he is fighting for his way of life. Based onay of life is exploitation of labor and the destruction of the lives of a whole race of people i dont see how i can look at that differently. I would add that some of the sentinels, the cookiecutter common soldier statues, most of them were made in the north and just as northern enterprise profited from the institution of slavery in the south, northern manufacturer profited from the yearning in the White Community to create statues. Almost all the big statues were cast in the north. The sculptors run the range. I want to go back to something dr. Gallagher said earlier. I vacation to mississippi a fair amount. I keep that lincoln scholar thing on the download. I get to talking to these people and the people that get emotional about the confederate statues being removed seem to be utterly unable to make the distinction that you may between history and memory. I am wondering if you can speak to some practical strategies to get the average american to see the difference. As professionals we see the difference but they most certainly do not. The phrase i kept hearing is that you are erasing this, which we are not. History and memory are different things. If you have different ideas about how to communicate there is a distinction that is a problem with virtually every undergraduate student i have taught. I am being serious. I have been at penn state for 12 years or uva for 21 years. Concept of separating history from memory is very difficult for them. It is something almost no one arrives with a conception about. Ofo not have an answer short locking people in rooms and making them listen to us. That would involve psychological costs of almost unimaginable should proportions. Are so most americans profoundly ignorant of our history that this is a subset of a much larger problem that is heartbreaking. What they think they know is usually wrong. It quite daunting. You have given the final word. That is not the final word just a grumpy interlude. I will try to not be grumpy. I want to go through different comments. There was one that acknowledges there are power structures in place that made these memorials possible in the first place. Racist power structures that put them there. There are politics that distort the curriculum and make it such that the way history is taught is also distorted. Coming back to the suggestion that this be handled locally, maybe i am not so optimistic, but if these racist power structures were in place that created them and the curriculum has perpetuated this can we leave it up to the local level to make these decisions or are we suggesting these power structures are not still in place. [applause] absolutely. The power structure in place in charlottesville does not look like the one that was in place in 1924. Part of what we are saying is that we hope that conversations that are had among those that may favor a blanket strategy and those who favor local control, we hope those conversations are informed knowledge and expertise and that the people have spent their lives studying and thinking about these matters and can have a hearing. In charlottesville in charlottesville part of what we are getting at is that in charlottesville a strange problem is that the locality has a very different power structure than it did years ago. The state is saying that the locality cannot decide and i think that law make no mistake to get to the issue of curriculum they are all connected. And otherat the udc confederate veterans descendent groups sponsored the statues not only to control the presence but our future. That is why they feature children in their work. The purpose was that there is one correct way to remember all of this and no other way. The more i learned about their purpose the more i came to resent the fact that the decisions made by these people all these many decades ago should control my presence. I will say again. If you do not know your own history, when will you learn it, and how . Ableu are not going to be to provide textbooks for your children that tell the full history of the country than nothing is going to change. Historians at our level or making a difference. Our students are getting something different. They are getting textbooks that attempt to tell the entire story. That is not happening at the secondary school level. The states that control the interested innot telling the entire history. [applause] unless we start looking at that differently we just have to have a different system because it is not going to work otherwise. Andersone is patrick from alexandria, virginia. I want to make a comment about a question that was asked of edna in her discussion. I think it is unfortunate we have missed the mark on this conversation here today. The issue ishat and the pain that is caused for people of color to walk by the statues, drive the statues, walk into court houses past the statues where africanamericans are many times more likely to go to prison than caucasian people, and we spend the rest of the time talking about woe is the destruction of art, local control, things that do not address the pain that these monuments caused. That is a problem. We spend five minutes talking about it and the rest of the time talking about all these other things. Howwere asked the question can we attract more people of cwi, to the lincoln forum, and all sorts of symposiums around the country. This is part of the problem. You suggested that people of color do not come to places they are not expected to come. Another reason maybe they do not feel welcome. I will have to ask you to ask a question. I will ask it to you. Are not going to address theseue of the pain that confederate monuments caused to people how can we expect people of color to want to come to a symposium. Let me respond by taking responsibility and saying that when edna address the issue of pain i felt that i would not presume to add my knowledge meant of her pain or my objection to her pain. She speaks movingly and convincingly of that and i thought it was respectful to let it stand as it was. I began addressing other parts because i think she had given a very complete response. That is my explanation. One else want to amended amend. Pain, exactly that. In this confederate problem came up with monuments i thought the solution was to conceptualize. Then i started thinking about africanamericans Walking Around what i i want want to go around the city that had himmler or goebbels . I thought about the same thing for the common soldier of the german population as i did himmler etc. I would not want that. Putting to that shoes, i thought the best was, i do not want art taken away and destroyed, i like what i heard about hungary. I never heard about that. , effort, and how it is to be done i do not know. I looked and i see a large Outdoor Museum where you can see them as you are supposed to and they are all together in one spot, large outdoors somewhere like a museum and you can cut to that conceptualized without destroying the art. This is one of the reasons i showed the wittenberg sculpture, the antisemitic sculpture that still stands and is a matter of controversy in germany. Professor gallagher made the point this is a local issue but there is one point where it is not local, in our United States state has twoeach statues. Let me read you the list. We know them all. Let me turn your comment into a question. I want to ask, does anyone know about other countries that put statues of traders traitors in the capital . Even though this is a national spots and the states by the way, theyre right near lincolns spot and a new room thats been dedicated to the memory of Abraham Lincoln in statuteary hall. Right outside the door is Jefferson Davis in the place of honor. The reason i was cutting you off and apologies is there was actually a piece of legislation that has been introduced and i want to phrase it in something that is grounded in reality. So cory booker has introduced a bill to order the removal of all confederate statutes from the United States capitol so we can frame it according to an actual, not that anything moves in the United States senate but theres a senate resolution. Theres been bills introduced along these lines. For those of you who dont know, the old House Post Office where Abraham Lincoln used to hang out and tell stories and pick up his mail is now in the office of congressman clyburn and has generously made that a lincoln room and retreat. Again, there are confederate statutes right outside. The republican steve sca lease from indiana, they claim lincoln as well and he was the whip and offered up the room originally. And clyburn the whip has it now. But it is a bipartisanship bill. Back to statutory hall. Thats a very good question. You start this round. Oh, good. I dont think they have any business being there. I think every state has the right to have two statues there. But its odd that a country would erect statutes to men who fought against the country. I just dont get that. I agree. It is up to congress. Right, and if i had a vote, i would vote to ban. Florida has voted to replace kirby smith with mary mccloud bethune, civil rights leader. Great. Good. My name is david ranky from worthington, ohio. In worthington, there is this house where Roswell Ripley was born. At one time in front of the house, there was a marker on a pole that gave a short bio about Roswell Ripley. It is my understanding the city got a call and a complaint and they took the marker down. I want to get your thoughts on the removal of this marker from Roswell Ripleys birthplace. Im afraid i dont know about it. What was in the discussion that it is worthy of removal . You might tell people who Roswell Ripley was. He was born in worthington in 1823and graduated from west point. He served in the mexican war. It is my understanding and you can correct me if i am wrong, he eventually was stationed in charleston, he met a woman whose father owned, i believe, maybe two plantations. He sort of became indoctrinated to that way of life. When the south seceded, he resigned from the union army and joined the confederate army. He actually commanded the artillery that bombarded fort sumter. He served in army, was wounded, and put in charge of the defense of charleston. Just tell us about the material that was taken down. Was it descriptive or it was a bio. And ill begin with the part that it says he resigned ill jump in and say you know, one of the good thought exercises as we think about all these things, is to simply say to put the burden of proof back on the defenders of these various statues and say is there a good reason that plaque or statue should be up other than the fact its been there for a long time. Thats not a good enough reason. I think again, that is a way of sparking conversation. That is also a discussion we have to have. Something having been there a long time. The landscape changes, as you said. Ive talked about these issues a lot with young people, students and so on, and they are a little incredulous at any notion that things should not change. Of course they change. And those who want the status quo should have a case to make beyond the fact that things have always been there way. I think we have time for two more questions, with apologies to those who have been waiting. The panelists will then be available to talk later at the rest of the events at the lincoln forum. Between more. I want to thank the four of you, it has been an enlightening iscussion. I wanted to ask you said that you should not take the statues off the pedestals because they were made to be looked at and if you took them down, they would look grotesque. Maybe that is the point. To take them down. [laughter] because when youre not looking up at somebody but looking at them, you see things differently. That is a very interesting comment. [laughter] it really is. A couple of friends have been discussing this, if we can recontextualize the statues by putting manacles on them. People have been doing it on an ad hoc basis, and whether it is a desecration is up to you. Not ad hoc, but a legal way. Ad hoc is destruction of public property. But if it is done in a public manner is different. I am getting in trouble for speaking as a person who used to be involved as an art museum in an art museum. I was not amused by dali doing a handlebar mustache on mona lisa. That seems to be the equivalent statement. I am handling the questions here. You are doing a wonderful job. I know there was no sarcasm in that observation. I do have a question with a little context. I have to agree with gary that every time i hear a parent at a memorial without signage explain what something is, i cringe, because so much is wrong. Thats where my question comes in. Is there a way if you are going to a park, and i do like the idea of putting other monuments that are more contemporary and tell a fuller story, but if you have a monument there, is there a way to create signage that explains the complexity of something . Ive been thinking about this since the smithsonian tried to put the enola gay on display back in 1995 and it was a debacle. I was a ta in grad school at the time, and i thought it would be so great if you have one panel with a historians interpretation, one panel with the american legion, and one panel of what came out of it, to show people that history is complex and people are complex. I am so glad that edna spoke about the pain involved, because this all comes into it. Can you foresee away that signage could be added to some f these memorials . Whether its a confederate or other problematic people that that show what people are capable of. Thats the reminder i put on these memorials, that these are also reminders of what people are capable of, if we have forgotten the history. This isnt a set up, but i was at the enola gay exhibit, and the only people there were a group of japanese tourists, and my son and i. We asked why they were there, and they said its part of history. Which i thought was interesting. They were the people most interested in it that day. They now have it on display, and i remember in 1995, they were going to put parts of it and that was the debacle. I was standing there one day looking at the enola gay and i heard a tour group go by and one of the the tour guide said i once had a japanese Fighter Pilot on my tour and he was scheduled to go on a com comacozee mission in 1945 and he pointed out at the plane and said thats the plane that saved my life. That blew my mind. Again, it is showing that memory and how people interpret things can be so different depending on the context they are coming from. These things are so fraught because people are coming from so many different perspectives and memory versus history, and how do we even present this . Thank you. Quickly. In your presentation, you talked about how they talk about reconstruction. One of the reasons for the statues is not just to discourage the africanamericans from voting in the south, but there was one group that could and to make sure nobody ever thought about voting republican or for reform minded democrats in those communities. As someone who grew up in one of those communities and has the skull fractures to go with it, i was wondering if you want to comment on that part of the history of these confederate memorials. Sure. Ive been thinking about it a lot recently because i started writing a biography or researching a biography of long street who famously had a political conversion and aboutface in which he embraced the Republican Party and black voting after the civil war and became a pariah or public enemy number one among confederates. And longstreet tried in a strange balancing act which i will write to say to ask whether he couldnt both be proud of his confederate record and be a republican who embraced the new order. And the overwhelming message of former confet rid confederates was no, you have to choose one or the other because those two things are not compatible. A number of people have noted in the midst of these controversies is there are reasons there are not statues of longstreet in the south because he was not useful in the symbol of White Supremacy in the post period and not somebody they thought of as worth memorializing. Its very complicated but also in a sense with these confederate memorials quite simple, that they are monuments to the lost cause. And we know what the lost cause was and what its tenets were and was an effort to prop up and establishment bright supremacy and tell a limited, distorted view of history, quote, unquote of the history of the war and we have to keep that front and center. [applause] there are a few things i think we can agree on after this afternoons discussion. Art has unexpected power, memory stirs some scabs from the scars of history that are worth exploring and understanding. The conversation can be difficult, it is always challenging. It can be emotional. It is the tough talk of history and memory that we have buried too long. It is about symbols we have accepted for too long without questioning them. I hope that the honesty and a little bit of rawness that the discussion exposed is in a side way the testimony to the facts that we are a forum where we dont avoid the topics or every opinion and every person is welcome and we hope to continue talking about difficult topics and with great historians to discuss it. Thank you all. [applause] prepare to cast off. Thank you. Youre watching American History tv. Covering history, cspan style with event coverage, eyewitness accounts, archival films, lectures and College Classrooms and visits to museums and historic places. All weekend, every weekend on span 3. Next we look back to Ronald Reagans president ial Campaign Announcement in the 1980 election. In a taped message from new york city, the former california governor talks about the economy, taxes, energy and foreign policy. Ronald reagan won the 1980 republicanpresident ial nomination with George H W Bush finishing a distant second. He then went on to defeat incumbent jimmy carter in the general election. Carrying 44 states. Ladies and gentlemen, ronald eagan. Good evening. Im here tonight to announce my attention to seek the republican nomination for president of the United States. I am sure that each of us has seen our country from a number of viewpoints depending on where