A statue of Confederate president Jefferson Davis is now on display in Richmond’s Valentine museum. The decision to display a toppled Davis forces visitors to look down rather than the direction that white southerners intended for it to be viewed when it was dedicated on
The museum has the right to display the statue however it wishes, and given that the toppling and covering with paint were a part of the 2020 riots following the killing of George Floyd, I can see how it could view these things as themselves an important part of history and, as a result, not wish to restore the statue to its original state. However, I find your argument that leaving it like this is "non-threatening to the community" to be highly problematic. Displayed like this, the statue is just as provocative as it was before the rioting on Monument Avenue--only in a different way. I think it's very plausible that some people will look at it the way it is now and feel a sense of being "threatened." However, they will not be the same people as those who felt that way gazing at it on its lofty perch on Monument Avenue. Moreover, given that statues and other monuments that are vandalized usually have the vandalism removed, the museum's decision not to do so here could easily be seen as a political statement. Again, I can understand their decision. But by the same token, I think it's very naive to believe it can be seen as a neutral, unifying way to display the statue that no well-meaning person will have reason to take issue with.
Thanks for the comment. My claim that the display of a toppled statue as non-threatening may, in fact, be premature. I guess we will have to wait and see.
I never suggested that the display of the statue should be viewed as "neutral" nor did I suggest that no one will "take issue" with it. The Confederate heritage crowd has already expressed their disdain for the museum.
Jefferson Davis is a fascinating subject for biographers and historians. I like James McPherson's Embattled Rebel: Jefferson Davis as Commander in Chief (2014). After the war, how Davis was -- or was not -- held to account for his actions as leader is also fascinating. It has echoes today in holding leadership to account.
The museum has the right to display the statue however it wishes, and given that the toppling and covering with paint were a part of the 2020 riots following the killing of George Floyd, I can see how it could view these things as themselves an important part of history and, as a result, not wish to restore the statue to its original state. However, I find your argument that leaving it like this is "non-threatening to the community" to be highly problematic. Displayed like this, the statue is just as provocative as it was before the rioting on Monument Avenue--only in a different way. I think it's very plausible that some people will look at it the way it is now and feel a sense of being "threatened." However, they will not be the same people as those who felt that way gazing at it on its lofty perch on Monument Avenue. Moreover, given that statues and other monuments that are vandalized usually have the vandalism removed, the museum's decision not to do so here could easily be seen as a political statement. Again, I can understand their decision. But by the same token, I think it's very naive to believe it can be seen as a neutral, unifying way to display the statue that no well-meaning person will have reason to take issue with.
Hi Lee,
Thanks for the comment. My claim that the display of a toppled statue as non-threatening may, in fact, be premature. I guess we will have to wait and see.
I never suggested that the display of the statue should be viewed as "neutral" nor did I suggest that no one will "take issue" with it. The Confederate heritage crowd has already expressed their disdain for the museum.
What explanatory notes are around this statue?
Do any of them contain the word traitor?
I've been looking for pics of the panels, but nothing yet. Will share if I come across something.
A brilliant decision by Valentine Museum.
Jefferson Davis is a fascinating subject for biographers and historians. I like James McPherson's Embattled Rebel: Jefferson Davis as Commander in Chief (2014). After the war, how Davis was -- or was not -- held to account for his actions as leader is also fascinating. It has echoes today in holding leadership to account.
I've not read that one, but I did thoroughly enjoy William Cooper's Davis biography.
I LOVE IT!!! Bravo, Valentine!