Thank you for all you do as a historian. This blog has been very helpful to me in learning to think critically and develop a more nuanced understanding of the Civil War Era.
It's difficult to counter with contextualization laudatory statuary's glorification of the 1860s armed secessionist insurrection.
As soldiers of the Union cause did, Southern soldiers suffered, exhibited bravery, and knew profound camaraderie on a daily basis more through shared sacrifice and friendship than Constitutional convictions. Yet the way emphasis, including in the design of pro-"Cause" monuments, tends to rest on those realities can feel sly, disingenuous, when left unmentioned is chattel slavery being at the heart of the insurrection.
Yes, the majority of the American majority that represented the winning side, including its leadership in the White House and on the battlefield, did not fight (at first) for emancipation or abolition, and, yes, a small minority of the American minority that represented the losing side believed that slavery was morally evil even as they still embraced sedition. But those truths do not, in my opinion, somehow wholly or even mostly redeem the Confederate monuments. Monuments will always mean more than what they say so it's best when they say as much as possible literally or indirectly, and Confederate monuments even that ostensibly acknowledge first and foremost the experience of the individual soldier tend to never communication: But our cause was (in the words of Ulysses S. Grant in his memoirs), "one of the worst for which a people ever fought, and one for which there was the least excuse."
Insofar as contextualization means signage that few will read, (but at least it's relatively permanent) and audio and digital content that is ephemeral, it may only rarely will carry in situ the emotional impact of a Confederate monument. As a result, it is probably best that the monuments be removed from federal public land, yes.
As I've said all along, the arguments for removing Confederate monuments from Civil War battlefields are reasonable. This is one of those areas where people can agree to disagree as to how to best manage the interpretation of places like Gettysburg.
I will continue to do what I can to educate the public in forums like this, in my work with history educators and students and on the battlefield itself.
If I were a billionaire, one cause I might pursue though it would not be able to affect federal land, would be contextualization by addition.
Being a pessimist and assuming that Confederate monuments will long linger, I would fund new monuments, focusing especially on women and African-Americans, of the Union, abolition, and Reconstruction causes, but insofar as a monument may be of a specific person, it would somehow capture the complexity of their humanity and not tend towards hagiography and idealization. Monuments to even great causes and people can be problematic if they idealize.
I'm well aware that many historians dislike all monuments, period, and would rather the funds for them had been applied to education. I have sympathy with that thinking, too. But at the same time I believe there's a place for public art, and memorials are art (albeit too often staid, uninteresting aesthetically, and the product of committees).
It's a reasonable suggestion. There are, however, a couple problems.
It is incredibly difficult to get permits for new monuments on NPS battlefields. We also should resist simply trying to balance out the commemorative landscape as a solution. That is certainly not a solution for people who feel strongly about removing Confederate monuments.
The final thing to acknowledge is that the process to remove monuments from battlefields is incredibly difficult. It is a long drawn out process that has to pass numerous hurdles, many of them being political.
Either way, we need to find ways to creatively interpret and educate visitors to historic sites like Gettysburg that have long been interpreted through a Lost Cause lens. This would be true with or without the monuments.
Very well said. I agree. (Just to clarify, I mentioned "it would not be able to affect federal land" because I, too, realize that to fund new monuments means, *practically speaking*, placing them *elsewhere*—e.g., private institutional land, for instance as a condition of a monetary donation, or even effectively-situated private residence's yards, which might be, for instance, near a NPS battlefield or, another example, near a county courthouse where stands a Confederate monument. As I mentioned, I'm far too pessimistic about the ability to get new monuments placed on public lands. Remember, in my fantastical scenario, I'm a billionaire LOL! So, I'd have some options.)
I am well aware of the scope of the impact that I have had and will continue to have over time re: these questions. At the same time I see myself as part of a much larger community of teachers, historians, activists, and others who are committed to educating the public about some of the toughest questions about history and memory.
Thank you for all you do as a historian. This blog has been very helpful to me in learning to think critically and develop a more nuanced understanding of the Civil War Era.
You just made my day. Thanks for reading, Sam.
It's difficult to counter with contextualization laudatory statuary's glorification of the 1860s armed secessionist insurrection.
As soldiers of the Union cause did, Southern soldiers suffered, exhibited bravery, and knew profound camaraderie on a daily basis more through shared sacrifice and friendship than Constitutional convictions. Yet the way emphasis, including in the design of pro-"Cause" monuments, tends to rest on those realities can feel sly, disingenuous, when left unmentioned is chattel slavery being at the heart of the insurrection.
Yes, the majority of the American majority that represented the winning side, including its leadership in the White House and on the battlefield, did not fight (at first) for emancipation or abolition, and, yes, a small minority of the American minority that represented the losing side believed that slavery was morally evil even as they still embraced sedition. But those truths do not, in my opinion, somehow wholly or even mostly redeem the Confederate monuments. Monuments will always mean more than what they say so it's best when they say as much as possible literally or indirectly, and Confederate monuments even that ostensibly acknowledge first and foremost the experience of the individual soldier tend to never communication: But our cause was (in the words of Ulysses S. Grant in his memoirs), "one of the worst for which a people ever fought, and one for which there was the least excuse."
Insofar as contextualization means signage that few will read, (but at least it's relatively permanent) and audio and digital content that is ephemeral, it may only rarely will carry in situ the emotional impact of a Confederate monument. As a result, it is probably best that the monuments be removed from federal public land, yes.
As I've said all along, the arguments for removing Confederate monuments from Civil War battlefields are reasonable. This is one of those areas where people can agree to disagree as to how to best manage the interpretation of places like Gettysburg.
I will continue to do what I can to educate the public in forums like this, in my work with history educators and students and on the battlefield itself.
We are all in this together.
If I were a billionaire, one cause I might pursue though it would not be able to affect federal land, would be contextualization by addition.
Being a pessimist and assuming that Confederate monuments will long linger, I would fund new monuments, focusing especially on women and African-Americans, of the Union, abolition, and Reconstruction causes, but insofar as a monument may be of a specific person, it would somehow capture the complexity of their humanity and not tend towards hagiography and idealization. Monuments to even great causes and people can be problematic if they idealize.
I'm well aware that many historians dislike all monuments, period, and would rather the funds for them had been applied to education. I have sympathy with that thinking, too. But at the same time I believe there's a place for public art, and memorials are art (albeit too often staid, uninteresting aesthetically, and the product of committees).
It's a reasonable suggestion. There are, however, a couple problems.
It is incredibly difficult to get permits for new monuments on NPS battlefields. We also should resist simply trying to balance out the commemorative landscape as a solution. That is certainly not a solution for people who feel strongly about removing Confederate monuments.
The final thing to acknowledge is that the process to remove monuments from battlefields is incredibly difficult. It is a long drawn out process that has to pass numerous hurdles, many of them being political.
Either way, we need to find ways to creatively interpret and educate visitors to historic sites like Gettysburg that have long been interpreted through a Lost Cause lens. This would be true with or without the monuments.
Very well said. I agree. (Just to clarify, I mentioned "it would not be able to affect federal land" because I, too, realize that to fund new monuments means, *practically speaking*, placing them *elsewhere*—e.g., private institutional land, for instance as a condition of a monetary donation, or even effectively-situated private residence's yards, which might be, for instance, near a NPS battlefield or, another example, near a county courthouse where stands a Confederate monument. As I mentioned, I'm far too pessimistic about the ability to get new monuments placed on public lands. Remember, in my fantastical scenario, I'm a billionaire LOL! So, I'd have some options.)
It's yeoman's work.
I am well aware of the scope of the impact that I have had and will continue to have over time re: these questions. At the same time I see myself as part of a much larger community of teachers, historians, activists, and others who are committed to educating the public about some of the toughest questions about history and memory.