[What] we decided to do is to contextualize it with a plaque beside the Confederate memorial and then to address directly the line, 'they died for us.'
Is this enough or should it be removed/relocated? Share your thoughts below in the comments section.
Thanks so much for linking to this piece. It has a lot of very interesting and relevant information.
"Sully’s plaque was placed on the south wall of the nave, and it was there in 1882."
This is relatively early in the memorialization/commemoration process. It is certainly falls outside the flurry of monument dedications that took place during the Jim Crow era.
I live in Williamsburg and have attended this church. Context matters. I do not view the plaque as a UDC Lost Cause piece ripe for defenestration. Perhaps the church can add a narrative of how the plaque (and associated cemetery memorial) came about. Maybe it could teach about the savage battle that occurred nearby and how many residents would have viewed the Confederate soldiers as "dying for us" (defending us?).
I think leaving it and adding the context is a good learning tool for future generations. They will see how the parish was able to grow over the course of a century and how truth overcame willful ignorance. Context is everything.
"Contextualizing" all depends on the words chosen. Another key question, in my mind, is who funded/placed the panel and when was it done? That is a very important factor not only for "context," but also in any decision on whether it should stay or be removed.
I do not see a significant difference between a cemetery or a church as a number of churches have cemeteries. The wording, when it happens, will be the most critical point of the story. The path forward for all saved confederate monuments has to have good and clear definition attached. It needs to be the norm.
Depends on how they contextualize the Civil War. It is not a public place like a town square or anything like that as long as its a functioning church. There is a church not far from in Abbeville County, SC that has this in their sanctuary at Greenville Presbyterian Church. I don't think it's wrong to move it either and I do find it strange to have that in a church. This one here I would be worried about it becoming a rallying point with some of things Abbeville is associated with like the League of the South. I would not think you would have the same issues in Williamsburg, but a small victory for now may be all you can get and keep working to do more down the road.
Thanks for the comment. It does present an opportunity to educate, but as you point out, it's a functioning church. I assume that plaque once reflected the collective values of the church community. It clearly no longer does so what's the use of maintaining it in situ. You also make a really good point about the broader context of community (i.e. Williamsburg v. Abbeville).
I need to know the context of their contextualization before rendering judgment. I wish it could be removed, but, if done well, I think adding context can better reach those, over time, that would completely protest removal. If not the current generation, then the next. I’d also think an offsetting monument is required for those forgotten by this “honor”, African Americans or other Americans that courageous fought the rightful cause.
Thanks for sharing, Kat. I just wonder whether a church is an appropriate place for contextualization. I am skeptical that contextualization solves the problem of such a memorial panel.
I attend St. Paul's Church. In 2015, the vestry voted to remove Confederate battleflags from the sanctuary as described in the 2015 article you reference. In 2020, the vestry voted to remove additional plaques and pew plates due to their association with Lost Cause ideology. St. Paul's also rededicated the stained glass windows originally installed as memorials to Lee and Davis. More information on the St. Paul's website. https://www.stpaulsrva.org/hri/memorials.
I graduated from William and Mary just down Duke of Gloucester Street from Bruton Parish, so I have a bit of a personal stake in this. I think this memorial plaque should be carefully and respectfully removed and put in a museum.
You said: "The plaque was hung by the church out of ignorance and hate in an effort to continue centuries of oppression and brutality against African Americans."
How do we know that this is why the plaque was dedicated? It looks like there are a lot of questions about the plaque's history that need to be answered, beginning with when it was placed inside the church.
Thanks for the follow up. There is no question that the history of slavery in Virginia, the history of racism, and the Lost Cause provide necessary context here, but we also need to understand the specific context surrounding this plaque. Perhaps the research that goes into the planned marker will shed some light on why it is there.
I agree that we need to think about Confederate monuments as falling under an umbrella framed by specific themes, but we also need to appreciate the different histories that they present based on any number of local factors. Thanks again.
The linked article disappointingly does not provide a lot of information about the plaque.
A quick search yielded this:
The Virginian-Pilot
Opinion: Confederate memorial plaque explained
By Will Molineux
Virginia Gazette. March 16, 2022
https://www.pilotonline.com/virginiagazette/opinion/va-vg-ed-opinion-confederate-plaque-0316-20220316-6o74atjnbfamnoianjo3ws5hy4-story.html
Hi Barry,
Thanks so much for linking to this piece. It has a lot of very interesting and relevant information.
"Sully’s plaque was placed on the south wall of the nave, and it was there in 1882."
This is relatively early in the memorialization/commemoration process. It is certainly falls outside the flurry of monument dedications that took place during the Jim Crow era.
I live in Williamsburg and have attended this church. Context matters. I do not view the plaque as a UDC Lost Cause piece ripe for defenestration. Perhaps the church can add a narrative of how the plaque (and associated cemetery memorial) came about. Maybe it could teach about the savage battle that occurred nearby and how many residents would have viewed the Confederate soldiers as "dying for us" (defending us?).
We shall see. Thanks for the comment, Paul.
I think leaving it and adding the context is a good learning tool for future generations. They will see how the parish was able to grow over the course of a century and how truth overcame willful ignorance. Context is everything.
Thanks for sharing, Noah.
"Contextualizing" all depends on the words chosen. Another key question, in my mind, is who funded/placed the panel and when was it done? That is a very important factor not only for "context," but also in any decision on whether it should stay or be removed.
Great point, Jim. This likely not the work of the United Daughters of the Confederacy.
I do not see a significant difference between a cemetery or a church as a number of churches have cemeteries. The wording, when it happens, will be the most critical point of the story. The path forward for all saved confederate monuments has to have good and clear definition attached. It needs to be the norm.
Thanks for the comment. The wording will also go far in determining whether this is enough to satisfy the church community.
Depends on how they contextualize the Civil War. It is not a public place like a town square or anything like that as long as its a functioning church. There is a church not far from in Abbeville County, SC that has this in their sanctuary at Greenville Presbyterian Church. I don't think it's wrong to move it either and I do find it strange to have that in a church. This one here I would be worried about it becoming a rallying point with some of things Abbeville is associated with like the League of the South. I would not think you would have the same issues in Williamsburg, but a small victory for now may be all you can get and keep working to do more down the road.
Thanks for the comment. It does present an opportunity to educate, but as you point out, it's a functioning church. I assume that plaque once reflected the collective values of the church community. It clearly no longer does so what's the use of maintaining it in situ. You also make a really good point about the broader context of community (i.e. Williamsburg v. Abbeville).
I need to know the context of their contextualization before rendering judgment. I wish it could be removed, but, if done well, I think adding context can better reach those, over time, that would completely protest removal. If not the current generation, then the next. I’d also think an offsetting monument is required for those forgotten by this “honor”, African Americans or other Americans that courageous fought the rightful cause.
Thanks for sharing, Kat. I just wonder whether a church is an appropriate place for contextualization. I am skeptical that contextualization solves the problem of such a memorial panel.
I don't mind there being memorials to Confederate soldiers in cemeteries, but they shouldn't appear in churches.
Thanks for sharing, Kevin. I wonder if the leadership at Bruton Parish is aware of how St. Paul's Episcopal in Richmond handled its Confederate iconography. https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3332070/Virginia-church-known-Cathedral-Confederacy-removing-plaques-versions-Confederate-flag-KEEPING-stained-glass-windows-depict-Robert-E-Lee-Jefferson-Davis-biblical-figures.html
I attend St. Paul's Church. In 2015, the vestry voted to remove Confederate battleflags from the sanctuary as described in the 2015 article you reference. In 2020, the vestry voted to remove additional plaques and pew plates due to their association with Lost Cause ideology. St. Paul's also rededicated the stained glass windows originally installed as memorials to Lee and Davis. More information on the St. Paul's website. https://www.stpaulsrva.org/hri/memorials.
Thanks for the link, Anne.
I graduated from William and Mary just down Duke of Gloucester Street from Bruton Parish, so I have a bit of a personal stake in this. I think this memorial plaque should be carefully and respectfully removed and put in a museum.
Thanks for the comment, Jim.
You said: "The plaque was hung by the church out of ignorance and hate in an effort to continue centuries of oppression and brutality against African Americans."
How do we know that this is why the plaque was dedicated? It looks like there are a lot of questions about the plaque's history that need to be answered, beginning with when it was placed inside the church.
Thanks for the follow up. There is no question that the history of slavery in Virginia, the history of racism, and the Lost Cause provide necessary context here, but we also need to understand the specific context surrounding this plaque. Perhaps the research that goes into the planned marker will shed some light on why it is there.
I agree that we need to think about Confederate monuments as falling under an umbrella framed by specific themes, but we also need to appreciate the different histories that they present based on any number of local factors. Thanks again.