Transcripts For CSPAN3 The Civil War Confederate Monuments 20240712

Controversial, emotional, and something 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, 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. And its a pleasure to welcome not only edna medford, but also liz varon and Gary Gallagher to join the discussion. Of 1728 confederate memorials in 22 states and the district of columbia, 110 have 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 that we all have to agree that however we feel about art, iconography, memorials, icons, history, american heroes and american villains alike, that the controversy over statues and memorials not only tributes 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. 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 has had more recent manifestations. The buddhas nearly 140 miles from kabul stood until the early part of the 21st century. They were destroyed and now they are being rebuilt in silicone. Silicon. So, iconoclasm is sometimes reversible, but not something we should consider. This is, on the right, a statue hardship suit 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. You see a dig at the metropolitan museum was running. Those pieces were gathered. The head was found in her collection in berlin, and now its reunited at the met. So again, reversals. Here are some heads that were destroyed and thrown into the and thrown into the seine by iconoclasts that once adorned notre dame. Again, heres one thats controversial and remains so. This is a sculpture from wittenberg 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 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 just do these quickly. Jefferson once stood in front of the white house. He no longer does. George washington, known as bath outside the capital. Figure looked at this when 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 king. Ould be thomas theres someone who does. Well, youre from california. Who is there now . Ronald reagan. Again, impermanence of memorials. Stalins statues didnt do very well. John wilkes booth was once in the rotunda of the Abraham Lincoln president ial library and museum 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. Tad visiting and richmond, supposedly, in 1865. And this is the demonstration that occurred on the day it was dedicated. Leave 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 when these statues have been removed. Mayor landrieu had statues moved in new orleans. Here are some other removal work being done. Roger tawney once stood this may not be that statue, but he once stood in front of the statehouse in annapolis. And right next to it was thurgood marshall. [laughter] harold what is more powerful . What is more powerful, the just xtaposition 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 these statues today if they dont pull them down . This one is pretty high up. Well, they managed graffiti on silence on this silent sam 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. All of the money raised for this statue was contributed by freedmen 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. The only women in central park are mother goose and alice in wonderland. They dont count as history statues. Susan bproposal with 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 africanamerican 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. It is 27 feet high, called rumors of war. It shows its a classical composition, but the rider 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. A fountain, jets emerging from the breasts of the statue, the jugular spouts water. And 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 . 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. 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 monuments, if it is 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 it certainly 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 drama in charlottesville unfold and having educated myself on 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 with which 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 the argument. But theres another kind of argument that you hear. And this is an argument made by recent defenders of these statues in a recent Charlottesville Court case in an attempted to defend a 1909 law that prevents localities from taking statues down, and attempt s to hold the city counselors who attempts to take those statues down 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 may 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 in charlottesville, the purpose of them was to promote the worshipful reverence of robert e. Lee and Stonewall Jackson, the veneration and vindication of those men. In a modern city, i dont see why some but he has to walk by i dont see why someone 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. At bottom, what to 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 what happens to statues in charlottesville, virginia. I think its a local issue. 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 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 se statues as the same thing. Theyre not the same thing. Lee and jackson i would put together among the five major confederaterelated 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. They are what i would call confederate monuments. The impetus came from the confederate generation. 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. There are people who try to separate the consent separate the confederacy from the institution of slavery. 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 threatening people as such as 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 it is either people or evil or people not evil 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. It has gone from republican stands and it has gone from republican hands to democratic hands. I would be stunned if they dont address this quickly. Then the bulb will be back in then the 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 it would be an appropriate that its settled on an ad hoc basis. I dont see any National Search and dealto pursue this with it. The interest in these statues spikes. 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 named George Littlefield 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. Davis is down, lee is gone, and davis anyway 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 preserving aesthetically, the lee and the jackson and the steward were meant to be seen from way down. What that means is that the artists 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 . Wants the burden of putting Stonewall Jackson statue in the park if its already on the street . 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 also makes it difficult to imagine moving them also makes it difficult to imagine contextualizing 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 court houses in front of which the confederate 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 contextualize, 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 raitors to thend t 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 reconciliationist dimension 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 the 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 i will 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, the lost cause tradition is coming together with the reconciliation tradition. Im going to disagree with liz on the possible utility of juxtaposing modern monuments to these existing confederate memorial landscape monuments. I can see putting the monument in a small park 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 to identify weve identified more than 250 of them, 250 black men, born in that county, 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 to 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 memory traditions. And theres one of them, the leader of the defeated commander confederates 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 the memory of great events. I think there would be something lost in taking down what is everything. Down liz again, the contextualizing , balancing of the kind you propose is 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 and 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 statue, again, remember, the purpose wasnt to say we all get memory traditions. It was meant to send a message that there was one right way to remember the civil war in 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 to which gary alluded involved 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 occludes and distorts history in the sense that, just to give you the most powerful example, during the civil war in virginia, the county was a black majority county. What does the statute tell us of what does the statue tell us of that history . The statue was there to occlude and disappear history. And again, i agree, locality should have a process, deliberate. We should always consider the balancing and contextualizing option, but with eyes wide open, about all the things that the statues hide and distort and the history of the divided south is one of the things they hide and distort. They try to posit a Greater Unity in the south than ever really existed in the civil war. Edna 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. Because part of the problem is people going there dont know the history. What will happen if the two are close together . They will Pay Attention to the lee statue because thats whats in the history books, not what black men did. So as long as the history books are written in the way they are, that favor the confederacy, we are always going to look at that gary i dont know which history books are written that way now. Edna what about the gary you cant muzzle people who want to write books. We can if we are adopting those books for our children, and that book went into the classroom. Harold this is the one that was researched online . Edna 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 charlottesville. Its not just a charlottesville thing. Its not just a virgina thing. It is one year before congress, the instigation of a congressman from indiana, initially, 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. That is important for people to understand. Liz there is. Gary but people need to understand that. Liz absolutely. Gary its much broader than this. Much broader than this. Harold 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 in the last few years. When charlottesville happened, it was suddenly discovered after these 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 robert e lee used when he was stationed in new york. The name was changed. There was a tree that he had planted outside of the house where he had stayed, which was chopped down or uprooted, and then it turned out out it was not the original tree. It was a replacement tree. [laughter] harold 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] harold 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 from new york gynecologists 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 was at central park at about 105th street. Now there is a new condition that is creating new statuary. The first lady of new york city, who is africanamerican, was the titular head of the commission. And they made a 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 a 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, is, 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 destruction or recontextualization . I know thats a remote area. It concerns me that we are using this generation to take away memory. And if we do so irreparably, it may hurt the history of memory. Edna i mean, let me just say, to refer to what both edna and gary said, what is the context people have . One of the textbooks what are books . T what are they framing the experience of these statues . What is our responsibility to teach, as gary has done in years of tours of charlottesville, in which these various 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 inform ourselves. And because when you inform yourself, sometimes you learn things that change your mind or that shape your view. And in the case of the charlottesville statues, i wanted to better understand the intentions of those who erected them. And so i read what was said at the dedication ceremonies and put that in context with what was said at dedication ceremonies for confederate monuments around the south. And, again, the message is a powerful one that essentially three kinds of arguments were made at these dedication ceremonies and they were all racist arguments. Sometimes they were very overtly claiming that the statues represented White Supremacy. We see this in the silent sam memorial and some others. Sometimes they were using dog whistles. They were speakers at the ceremonies, waxing nostalgic about the values of the old south in the slavery days. Or they were condemning reconstruction. When you get up and say the dark days of reconstruction will never come again. Reconstruction was a tragic era. The worst crime in human civilization. Thats a racist argument because thats the one age that africanamericans had had rights. And then there are some that same area word about africanamericans, even places like charlottesville where they were the majority, and not consulted about what statues should be put up. So the important thing again is this model garys offered in his book about competing memory traditions. One of these things we need to do as we educate ourselves is look at how these memory traditions competed, and in every turn, there were counter narratives. There were africanamericans criticizing them, suggesting that there was an alternate way to think about this history. So this is just a way of underscoring our intense responsibilities as educators. I sometimes felt that if i knew every visitor to charlottesville who was to look at a recontextualized lee statue, i would have an hour with edna and gary to draw their own conclusions, i would feel fine with that. But they are not going to get the hour with edna and gary, so they may see these things and draw the entirely wrong conclusion about my city and so on. Edna and other countries have dealt with this differently. How did the germans deal with this . Harold erasure. But in hungary, in budapest, there is a park for discredited heroes. All the art they like of heroes they hate are in this tourist attraction. [laughter] harold but when st. Petersburg became leningrad, the communists did not destroy peter the great although there was pressure to do so. In fact, in world war ii, it was boxed in a steel case to prevent it from being damaged in a nazi invasion because the myth in the city was that as long as peter stood, the city would stand. And now its fully restored and a proud symbol of st. Petersburg. So there was one decision that was almost made hastily, and that wasnt made hastily. I realize race is different, but you asked about the european traditions. Those are the ones i know about. Gary, did you want to add something . Gary i was going to make a quick comment about lizs how do people view these . I think most people have no idea who is on a horse in lee park. That is what i would say. Just before the outbreak in charlottesville, katie couric was filming for a special she did on this issue that came out a little bit later. Her crew and photographer had urine thrown on them during the actual flareup. But katie couric was an undergraduate student at the university of virginia. She lived on the lawn at the university of virginia, right out from the rotunda. There were two plaques. Each of them listed graduates who had died in Confederate Service during the war. It was just to list of 250 it was just two lists of 250 they were still there. They are gone now. I asked katie what she thought of these. She said i never notice them. I said what did you think of the lee statue downtown . Never heard of it. And she is someone who was right there. The plaques were 70 yards from where she walked out her door every morning. And i think thats actually what most people think of these things until something flares up, and then they think about them more. But i dont know if we will ever be able to poll people if we know whos on the horse park, but i bet most people dont. Harold i have a followup question, but i also want you to spend time thinking if you have a question you would like to address. Were not going to wait until the end. We will take some questions during the panel, so step up to the mic if you want to join the discussion. [laughter] harold on second thought. [laughter] harold cut off that mic. [laughter] gary and please direct all questions to harold. [laughter] harold heres my question while half of the audience assembles. Gail collins of the New York Times there is a non sequitur has said that historical figures, those pretrade in art, portrayed in art, should be judged by their main point. A nice prosaic way of saying leave jefferson and washington alone. Should there be a different standard for the imperfect National Founders and the secessionists, who by the way, claimed not only White Supremacy, but that they were following the revolutionary paths of washington and jefferson . Because the next discussion will be about jefferson and washington. Liz so, i sort of reject the slippery slope argument. I would argue that they are different. They create this framework of a union that can be perfected, that by the time the confederates come along, thanks to the work of abolitionists and others, the door has been cracked open to changing, to envisioning an interracial society, and confederates come along and say we are going to close that door and chain it shut forever. Thats a difference. Theres a difference between the people who conceptualize a union that could be perfected and a union in which there would be Southern States if secessionists had their way. Of course the state of virginia wouldnt be in the union in the United States of america if the confederates had won, wouldve been a very, very long time before slavery ended, needless to say. So, i think there is a difference, and thats an argument i invite and what sort and would sort of have all day. Lets remember that some of the confederates very much fastened onto the revolutionary legacy and said we are defenders of it. But others say es, jefferson was say others, say, alexander stephenson, said jefferson was ambivalent about slavery and he was wrong. And we are not ambivalent in the confederacy. Thats also complicate question. So i would say yeah, theres a difference, sure. Harold ok, lets try to ask questions and limit the comments. Im going to try to ask a question. Harold ok. In terms of memorializing the confederates, can one of you or two of your three of you are all four of you speak to the difference between memorializing e, jackson, stewart, versus a statue of the common soldier i guess . Gary i wouldnt necessarily use silent sam as my example, but i will speak to the difference i see in charlottesville. The earliest of the confederate statues in charlottesville is in the uva cemetery. And it is in the midst of a part of a cemetery where there are a few more than a thousand confederate soldiers buried, who died when uva was potentially turned into a confederate hospital at two points early in the war. That monument, the impetus behind that was the Ladies Memorial Association type groups, later udc type groups, and confederate veterans. And i see it more akin to the little monuments you see in english villages everywhere that remember, essentially, a lost generation of young men. I would put that kind of monument, not that its still not separated from slavery and from a slaveholding republic but its a very different kind of monument than a heroic, equestrian statue of Stonewall Jackson or lee. Which came many decades later and have a different origin than the one in the uva cemetery at uva. Harold liz . Liz i agree we need to think about that we shouldnt conflate all of these periods in confederate memorialization together, and we have to be aware of the different settings and different meanings. And i think the cemetery is an appropriate place for such a statue, but that a Public Square is not. Edna i think 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 were memorializing people who were tr aitors to the nation, whether they were leaders or common soldiers. And i know the argument can be made that the soldier is entering the war because this is what he was told to do, and he is fighting for his way of life. But if that way of life is based on the exploitation of the labor and the destruction of the lives of a whole race of people, then i dont see how i can look at it any differently. Harold i would just like to 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 manufacturers profited enormously from the yearning in the White Community to embrace it and create statues. Gary almost all the big statues were cast in the north. Harold yeah, and the sculptors run the range. I want to go back to something dr. Gallagher said earlier, the key to this. I have an occasion to go to mississippi a fair amount. By the way, i keep the whole lincoln scholar thing on the down low. I get to talking to these people, and the people that get really emotional about the confederate statues being removed seem to be utterly unable to make the distinction that you made between history and memory. Im just wondering if you can speak to some practical strategies to get the average american to see the difference, because as professionals, we see the difference, but they most certainly do not. The phrase i kept hearing, youre erasing history. Which youre not. History and memory are two different things. Do you have ideas . How to communicate to ordinary people the distinction . Gary thats not just a problem in mississippi. Thats a problem with virtually every undergraduate student ive taught at either penn state for 12 years or uva for 21 years. They have that concept of separating history from memory is very difficult for them and its something that no one arrives with a conception about. They just dont. And i dont have an answer, short of locking people in rooms and making them listen to us. [laughter] and that would involve psychological costs of unimaginable proportions. I think most americans are so profoundly ignorant of our history that this is just a subset of a much larger problem thats kind of heartbreaking. What they think they know is usually wrong, but they dont even think they know much. So i really dont have i find it quite daunting. Liz, please be more upbeat. [laughter] harold youre being greeted you have given the final word. Gary thats not a final word. Thats just a grumpy interlude. [laughter] i want to take two different comments made and ask a question. There were different power structures in place that made these memorials possible in the first place, racist power structures that put them there. And then there is politics that often distorts curriculum and makes it such that the way history is taught is also distorted. And so coming back to the suggestion that this be handled locally, i have maybe im not so optimistic, but if these racist power structures were in place that created them, and the curriculum has perpetuated this, can we really leave it up to the very local level to make these decisions . Or are we suggesting those power structures arent still in place . [applause] the power structure in place charlottesville does not look like the one in place and i can 24. Of course that is true, but part of what we are saying is we have conversations that are had, both among those who favor a sort of blanket strategy and those who favor local control, we hope those are informed by knowledge and expertise and that the people have spent their lives studying and thinking about these matters can have a hearing. Charlottesville did. Exactly and again, and charlottesville part of what we are getting at is that the strange problem is the locality has a very different power structure than a dead 150 years ago, but the state has its them on the scale. Make no mistake about it. They are all connected. The udc and other confederate veterans that sponsor the statues did not only want to control the present, but our future and that is why they feature children and textbook battles in their work. The purpose was to say there is one correct way to remember all of this in no other way. The more i learned about that the more i came to resent the fact the decisions made by these people, all these decades ago, should control my present. Why . Again, if you do not know your own history, when are you going to learn it and how are you going to learn it . If you are not going to be able to provide textbooks for your children that tell the full history of the country, then nothing is ever going to change. Yes, historians at our level are making a difference. Our students are getting something different. Thatare getting textbooks tell the entire story. That is not happening at secondary school level. The states that control the intbooks are not interested telling the entire history. Unless we start looking at that [applause] unless we start looking at that differently, we have to have a different system because it is not going to work otherwise. Yes. My name is Patrick Anderson from virginia. I want to link this back to a question asked of edna in her discussion. I think it is unfortunate we have missed the mark on this conversation today. Edna framed, i think, with the issue is and the pain caused for people of color to walk by these statues, driveby these statues, walk into court houses past the statues were africanamericans are more likely to go to prison than caucasian people. We spent the rest of the time talking about woe is the destruction of art, local control, things that do not address the pain these monuments cause. We spent five minutes talking about that and the rest of the time talking about these other things. How can we attract more people of color to the lincoln forum, cwi, and i think this is part of the problem. You suggested perhaps people of color do not come to a place they are not expected to come. Perhaps another reason is because they do not feel welcome. I am going to have to ask you to ask a question at this point. I will ask this to you and gary. If we are not going to address an issue of the pain these confederate monuments ca use to people of color, how can we ask them to come to the symposium . Let me take responsibility for the tone of the discussion in saying that when edna addressed the issue of pain i felt i would not presume to add my acknowledgment of her pain or objection to her pain. She speaks movingly and convincingly of that and i thought it was respectful to let that stand as it was. Partsn addressing other because i think she had given a very complete response. That is my explanation. Anybody else want to add to that . Ok. Pain. When this whole confederate problem came up with the monuments i thought, leave them there and conceptualize. Then i started thinking about africanamericans Walking Around a city. What i want to go around a city that had hitler . No. I thought about the same thing for the common soldier of the german population. I would not want that. I do not want art taken away and destroyed. I like what i heard about hunger. That is what i came down to. I get money and effort dont know. I would love to see a large Outdoor Museum where you can see them, as you are supposed to, and have them all together in one spot. Somewhere as a museum and you can come to that, conceptualize, understand without destroying the art. This is one of the reasons i showed the wittenberg sculpture which still stands and is a matter of controversy in germany. Professor gallagher made the point this is a local issue, but there is one place it is not a local issue and that is in our United States capital. Each state has two statues. Let me redo the list we know them. Jefferson davis, stevens, wade hampton let me turn your comment into a question. I want to ask, does anybody know of another country who puts statues of traders in the capital . Evenis our National Spot though the states sent the two statues. Should there be a National Effort to get these confederate statues removed from the capital . They are right near lincolns spot. Exactly. Hallnew room out statutory and right outside the door is Jefferson Davis. Good. Offreason i was cutting you and apologies, but there was a piece of legislation that has been introduced and i want to phrase it in something that is grounded in reality. Cory booker has introduced a bill to order the removal of all confederate statues from the United States capital so we can frame it according not the anything moves in the United States senate [laughter] but there is a senate resolution. There have been others along this line. For those of you who do not officehe old house post where Abraham Lincoln used to hang out and tell stories and pick up his mail is now the office of cumbersome and clyburn and he has very generously congressman clyburn and he has very generously made that a lincoln retreat. It was a republican from louisiana first. He offered up the room originally. And clyburn has it now. It is a bipartisan bill. Back to statutory hall. That is a good question. Edna, you start. I think they have no business being there. I understand each state has the right to have two stitches there, but i feel it is odd a tontry would erect statues men who fought against a country. I do not get that. I agree. Except to congress. If i had a vote, i would vote to ban. Replaceda has voted to a statue as well. Yes. My name is david and i am from ohio. Housethington there is a 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 of roswell. It is my understanding that the city got a call and a complaint and took the marker down. What i want to do is get your thoughts and ideas about what you thought, or think of, this removal. This is the marker from the front of the Roswell Ripley place. I am afraid i do not know about it. Thatwas in the discussion they deemed it worthy of removal . You might tell people who Roswell Ripley was. 1823 and born in graduated from west point. War andd in the mexican it is my understanding, and you can correct me if im wrong, he was eventually stationed in charleston. He met a woman there whose father owned maybe two plantations. He became indoctrinated into that way of life. Hen the south succeeded resigned from the union army and joined the confederate army. Artillery thehe bombarded fort sumter. He served in the army, was wounded, went back, and was put in charge of the defense of charleston. Tell us about the material that was taken down. Was a descriptive . It was a bio and i will begin with the part one ofll jump in and say the things that we think about is to put the burden of proof back on these defenders and say, is there a good reason it should be up except that it has been there a good long time . That is not a good enough reason. Again, that is a way of sparking conversation, but that is also a discussion we have to have. Something having been there a long time the landscape changes. I have 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 that want the status quo should have a case to make beyond the things that this is always been this way. I think we have time for two more questions with apologies for those who have been waiting. The panelists will be available to talk later at the rest of the events here at the lincoln forum. I want to thank the four of you because this has been any an enlightening discussion. You said you should not take the statues off the pedestals because they remain to be looked at and if you took them down, it would look grotesque. Maybe that is the point. [laughter] when you not looking up at somebody, but looking at them, you see things differently. That is a very interesting comment. [laughter] it really is. Could we contextualize by putting manacles on them . People have been doing that on a ad hoc basis and whether it is a corrective or desecration depends on your point of view. Do it in a legal way. I think doing it ad hoc is destruction of public property. If it was done in a legal manner, that is different. As someone who used to be involved with an art museum i was not amused by Salvador Dali doing handlebar mustache on the mona lisa. That seems to be an equivalent statement. You are doing a wonderful job. [laughter] know there was no sarcasm in that observation. Michelle. I do have a question with a bit of context and i have to agree with Gary Gallagher. Every time i hear a parent at a memorial that does not have signage explain what something is i cringe because so much of it is wrong. That is where my question comes in. Is there a way that if you are going to a park and i like the idea of putting other monuments that are more contemporary and telephone her story but if you have a monument, is there a way to create signage that explains the complexity of something . I have been thinking about this since the smithsonian tried to put the enola gay on display in 1995 and it was a debacle. I was a ta in grad school and thought it would be so great if you could have one panel of what the historians interpretation was, a panel of the american legions interpretation, and one panel of what came out of it to show People History is complex and people are complex. Spokeo glad that edna about the pain involved in all of this because this is all coming into it. Thatou foresee a way signage could be added to these memorials . Shows what people are capable of. That is the reminder i put on these memorials. These are reminders of what people are capable of if we have forgotten the history. This is not 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 and asked why they were there and they said, because this is part of history which i thought was an interesting thing. They seemed to be the most interested in it that day. If i could add something. They have the enola gay on display and when they were going to put parts of it that was the debacle i was standing there one day and i heard a tour up go by and one of the the tour guide said i once had a japanese Fighter Pilot on tour and he was scheduled to go on a, because emission in 1945 and he pointed to the plane and said that is the plane that saved my life. That blew my mind. Memory and how people interpret things can be so different depending on the context they are coming from. That is why these things are so fraught. People are coming from so many different perspectives and the memory versus the history and how do we even present this. Thank you, michelle. Very quickly. In your presentation you talked about how they talked about reconstruction. One of the reasons for the statues is not just to discourage the africanamericans from voting. There was one group that could and to make sure that nobody ever thought about voting e mindedan or for a for democrat in this communities, and as someone who grew up in those committees, i thought if you might want to comment on that part of the history of these confederate memorials. Sure. I have been thinking about this a lot recently because i started writing a biography of james long street who famously had a political conversion which he embraced the Republican Party after the civil war. Numberme public enemy one among confederates. Long street tried to say to ask whether he could both be proud of his confederate record and be a republican who embraced the new order and the overwhelming message was no. You have to choose one or the other because those two things are not compatible. There is a number of people who have noted that there is a reason there are no statues of longstreet in the south. He was not useful as a symbol of White Supremacy and therefore not somebody they thought of as worth memorializing. It is very complicated, but also in a sense, quite simple. They are monuments to the lost cause and we know what the lost cause was, we know what its tenants were, it was an effort to prop up and establish White Supremacy and tell a limited, distorted view of history of the war. We just have to keep that front and center. [applause] there are a few things i think we can agree on after this afternoons discussion. Memory unexpected power, stirs scabs 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 for 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 the rawness this discussion exposed is, in a sideway, a testament to the fact that we do not avoid the topics, where every opinion is welcome, and every person is welcome, and we continue tackling difficult and challenging topics. I hope we do that with your support, encouragement, and great historians to discuss it. Thank you, all. [applause] announcer American History tv is on social media. Follow us at cspan history. Announcer next on American History tv, William Jewell College Professor Gary Armstrong on the u. S. Senates rejection of the 1919 treaty of versailles to end world war i president Woodrow Wilson spent seven Months Overseas negotiating. Professor armstrong argues the open treaty would involve u. S. Position in the global order, but the political divisions created by a flu pandemic, a red scare, racial unrest, and wilson suffering a stroke contributed to his failure to achieve ratification. The National World war i