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 ive discussed this topic at twice or three times with edna medford. And it is evolving even between us as we proceed over about 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 1,728 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 it is 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, ography and icons, history, and american heroes and villains alike, that the controversy over statues and memorials thought only attributed to confederates in the south and also to those, and for example and ill show you imanls, honoring figures in new york state continues at a kind of a high boil. I would like to show you some images. And let me start with this one. And this is my opening slide to suggest that icono clasm is not new. I cannot suggest that we could blame all of this on charleton heston, but moses did destroy the golden calf. But it had more recent manifestations. The buddhas near 140 miles from kabul stood from 544 a. D. To the early part of the 21st century. They were destroyed as you know. And now theyre being rebuilt in silicon. So icono clasm is something we should consider. This is on the right a statue of hatchepso, this is earlier than the buddha. It is 1500 b. C. When she, who dressed as a he, left the throne, all of the statutes were destroyed. You see on the left a dig in egypt that the metropolitan museum was running. Those pieces were gathered, the head was found in a collection in berlin and now it is reunited at the metz. So, again, reversals. Here are some heads that were destroyed by and thrown into the sand by icono clasm. Here is one that is controversial and remains so, this is the sculpture, a famous one in whittenberg, not where where Martin Luther preached. It is jews sucking on a pig and many recalled to be removed on the 500th birthday and others say it is a matter of history and there is a plaque that adds context by apologizing for its ancient spew of hatred. Icono clasm is not new to the United States. This is ripping down a statue of george iii, however after the declaration of independence was first read in new york city, i think it was july 14th. And on and on. Ill do those quickly. Jefferson once stood in front of the white house, he no longer does. George washington known as georgie in his bath once stood outside of the capitol. Lincoln looked at this figure when he was inaugurated twice. It was considered unseemly later. It wasnt destroyed but it is in the basement of the smithsonian. Statuary hall is not permanent. California thought the favorite son should be thomas stark king is. Does someone know who thomas stark king is. Someone does. But youre from california. But who is there now . Ronald reagan. So again in permanence 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 little bit about charlesville, this is the infamous night in charlottesville. I was there when the statute was dedicated in richmond. It is lincoln and ted visiting richmond supposedly in april 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 arts. Some of them are great. This one is great. Jeb stuart and some of them are not. Jefferson davis. And some of the responses are not. Arthur ash at the end of the monument avenue, not a great statue. And then the recent period when the statues have been removed, mayor landrieu had statutes removed in new orleans. Here is some other removal work being done. Roger tauny once stood this is not the statue but he once stood in front of the state house in annapolis. And right next to it was thurgood marshall. What is more powerful what is more powerful, the juxtaposition of a man who said that black people could not be citis and had had 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 is happened since dred scott. Anyway. Well talk about that. Removals. And then of course durham where statues were pulled down. This is the dedication of the statue. As you 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 hold them down. This is pretty high up. They managed graffiti on this sentinel. And here is another statue that has been marked up. In new york city we have a statue of Theodore Roosevelt and 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 balls 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 freedman and Frederick Douglass grave the brilliant address but those who are discomforted by it. In new york, weve recently propose the the first statute of a woman in central park. The only women in central park are mother goose and alice in wonderland so they dont count as history statues. Anthony and Elizabeth Katie stanton but that does not include the africanamerican contributions to suffrage, so sojourn of a truth is added to the model but some say it should not be with the two women because their attitudes on africanamericans were retrograde. One answer or one solution or one approach we might consider is new statues. This is an extraordinary equestrian statute by wylie that appeared one day in times square in new york. It is destined for richmond. It will be in the fan district and it is 27 feet high, its called rumors of war. It shows a soldier, a classical composition, but the rider is wearing dreadlocks and a hoodie. And it is going to the museum of fine arts. Carol walker has done a riff on the statue of Queen Victoria in front of buckingham palace. Jets e jets emerging from the statue and it spouts water and this is rather an extraordinary work of art. So build me with you is another approach. Here is a statue of columbus in new york city. That now bears a pair of bloodied hands to represent his approach to native peoples. And thats just a little bit of what is going on around around the country. So, i guess the basic question i would like to ask is as a historian, as a human being, should we build, should we reare consider or contextualize. Lets start with edna. Im a person of color, first. Im a historian second. When i and 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 hi 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. So as a person of color, i dont think that is enough to contextualize. Because people are not going to stop and read what is on a plaque. If its on a monument or monument avenue or some other place, id 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 of the time. And it certainly doesnt have to be on public lands that i am helping my taxes are helping to pay for. If it is in someones home or on someones personal property, that is their business. But if it is a public space, it should not be there. If im expected to maintain it. And liz, from both you and gary, no charlottesville well so we would like to hear. Agree with edna, having observed this drama in charlottesville unfold and educated myself on the origins of those confederate statues and on the intentions of those who erected them and i could say a lot more about about that. I think recontextualizing them in a Museum Setting that is pedagoguical and curating to learn about context is essential. Ive heard a range of arguments on behalf of keeping the statues up and there is a set of arguments 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 which i disagree but respect is the argument and ive heard friends and colleagues make this argument, that Something LikeCharlottesville Lee statue showed there was a direct line between the confederacy and policies and jim crow segregation and they could 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 that argument. But there is another kind of argument that you hear and this is an argument made by recent defenders of these statues and in a recent1909 law that prevents localities from taking the statues down and hold city counselors who voted to take those statues down financially libel. They argued the statues had nothing to do with race or slavery or White Supremacy. You may its ludicrous but people do. That argument is a very different argument than the first one i gave. We have to sort of stand up to that. These statues in charlottesville, the purpose of them was to promote the worshipful reverence of robert e. Lee and Stonewall Jackson. In a modern multicultural city, i dont understand why anyone should have to walk by them open their way to the city market in the morning. Lets put them in a space where they can be curated. This is something thats really hard to deal with in a short period of time. I think at bottom, what to do with the statue say local issue, first of all. I dont think anybody who lives in tacoma, washington, should have anything to say about what happens to statues in charlottesville, virginia. I think its a local issue. I think there should be a local process. Charlottesville took a careful approach toward what to do with the statues of lee and jackson. That was they had public hearings. They had a rain of witnesses who spoke to 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 toaught at the university of virginia for 22 years and used the confederate memorial landscape as a teaching tool, i find it distressing that we flatten out the memorial landscape and treat all of these 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 than Confederate Monuments. The people who spearheaded putting them up one individual basically paid for them who was a wealthy individual who put his stamp on charlottesville in many ways. There were three earlier ones that are actually what i would call confederate. I think there are different purposes behind them. I think its all of which are related to the confederacy. Dont misunderstand what im saying. There are people who try to separate the confederacy from the institution of slavery. They should stop and spend their time doing something else. The two are inextricably linked. Read what the confederate said indication said it was up to. Establishing a slaveholding republic beyond the reach of threatening people such as lincoln. Having said that, i think its important to approach this memorial landscape with an understanding that its more complex than just reducing it to a simple its either evil or its not evil proposition. I think its more complicated than that. I will 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. 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 cant remove war memorials. So they argued about whether these are war memorials. The decision is yes. The legislature has changed. Gone from republican to democratic hands. I will be stunned if the legislature doesnt address this fairly quickly. Then it will the ball will be back in charlottesvilles court. I think at that point, probably lee and jackson will come down. Im not sure. I think thats what will happen. I think its appropriate that its settled in charlottes vilas i think it would be appropriate its settled in each of the other localities. I dont see any National Surge to pursue this and deal with it. The interest in these statues spikes. Ive seen it throughout my life interested in civil war history. When i was a graduate student i will stop in a minute. Thats all right. There are statues on one plaza at the university of texas that were funded by a confederate veteran named george w. Littlefield. There were statues of Jefferson Davis and robert e. Lee and Albert Sidney johnston along one part of the campus. Those have become an issue. It flares up and dies down and then flares up again. The arguments are always pretty much the same on the two sides. Either in favor or against. In awe continuustin, those have. They are in davis is in a museum. I want to add some context about the museum alternative. Because i think its unrealistic. Its totally unrealistic. We know that in richmond, the director of the multimuseum has said she does not want to have the burden of caring for the statues should it be proposed they be transferred to the museum. The second reason is, really a matter of scale and the physicality of the statues. The lee and maybe not so much the davis, which is probably not worth preserving aesthetically, the lee and jackson and stewart were meant to be seen from way down. What that means is that the artists who made them made them in a way that they would look human or the animals would look alive from 1 000 feet below. If you put them at eye level, they will look grotesque and they will look cartoonish and artistically, its a mess. I dont really believe the museum alternative would 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 con i understand the evolution of thought. They cant be put in a park or something because isnt is anyone going to raise the money to build a pedestal . Who wants the burden of putting Stonewall Jackson statue in a park if its on the street . The point you raise, harold, also speaks to this option potentially of onsite contectualization. The larger statues, finding a home is unlikely. If they have to be pulverized, so be it, if there arent takers, private or public who want them, then that will be unavoidab unavoidable. The same scale of the statues that makes it difficult to imagine moving them also makes it difficult to imagine contextualizing them on site. Lets take them down. As you said, their scale is such that its hard to imagine what you could do to balance out that. Lets be very clear about the fact that location of the statues and size of the statues was meant to send a message to africanamericans that they would not get justice in the courthouses in front of which the confederate soldiers stood, they were not welcome in the public spaces downtown in the case of the charlottesville neighborhood where literally africanamericans have been driven out. 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. I want to go to gary for a minute. I would like to back up and try to put in Historical Context the motivation, the period, the wealth and really the evolution of memory. How wone wonders did confederat heroes, which were slaveholders and traders, to the United States, become national paragons. Was it all wealth . Was it what was the political culture that proved so welcoming to these memorializations . I know there were several periods of that. Theres a powerful reconciliationist dimension tots memb to the memory of the civil war. Theres two napoleons. They were donated to the city of charlottesville by the United States government to be put on either side of the Confederate Monument in front of the county courthouse. Its a perfect way to talk with i will talk about how the 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 of the wars coming together with the reconciliationist tradition of the war there. Im going to disagree with liz on the possible utility of juchl juxtaposing. I can see putting a small statue up. Liz and i and others at the university of virginia have worked to identify we have identified more than 250 black men born and fought for the United States in the civil war, put on blue uniforms and fought for the United States. I think it will be illuminating to have a statue to those black men a few yards from the statue to robert e. Lee that would remind people that history is not a static thing and history often gives way to different memory traditions of history. Theres one of them, the statue of r. E. Lee, the memory of the defeated confederates after the war. Here we are in whatever year you want to say, 2020, and here are the men who fought in usct units, several dozen of them, these 250 men did. H