Yesterday work crews moved into position to begin the process of removing the Confederate monument in Arlington National Cemetery, located in Section 16.
Maybe we're going about it in the wrong way. Instead of taking it down Maybe we should add more monuments around it to reconcile with those who died fighting the US? Maybe monuments to the British Army and Navy circa 1775-1783? The Imperial German Army and the Wehrmacht would fit as well. The National Cemetery of the Pacific in Honolulu probably has room for a nice monument to the Imperial Japanese armed forces.
Obviously I'm being sarcastic, but the Confederate monument's defenders are trying to protect a monument in the middle of graves of those who defended the US to those whose purpose was openly and proudly to destroy the US. Might as well complete the set.
It's painful to see living monuments to the Lost Cause. As a first generation American growing up in this strange land and very strange society, I did not know why what it was so depressing I did not know the history as I am learning from you. As a sensitive child, I was simply an intuitive thinker. The Civil War was for me always a depressing subject best avoided.
But "living (not in museum) monuments" have testimonial power. Historywashing (must not use the-easier-to understand term "whitewashing") is as common as greenwashing and humane certified/organic washing in agricultural labels. It's what the always-forward-looking, future dollar value-obsessed, blame the minority political party or blame the minority race American culture does best: wash away overthink.
You said: "But 'living (not in museum) monuments' have testimonial power." I think we agree, but these monuments mean very different things to different people. It's hard to imagine African Americans seeing themselves and their history in this monument given the way that enslaved people are viewed--namely as "loyal slaves."
I like to remind people that monuments/statues are not history lessons. They are reminders of the collective values and view of the past of the individuals and groups that dedicated them. Thanks for the follow up.
Erasing the past reminds me of the Soviets. Dictating what may or may not be believed is like the Third Reich, but that seems not quite as applicable to this. It's also like a memory hole but for sort of opposite reasons. Unfortunately, fewer people would stop inside a museum housing the monument in question to read such an exhibit's posted narrative, than would go on one of your graveyard tours.
Thanks for taking the time to share your thoughts, but I honestly never know how to respond to references that compare what is happening here in the United States re: monuments with the former Soviet Union or Nazi Germany. I still remember visiting Prague a couple years ago and noticing the empty pedestals that once served as the foundations for monuments and statues that honored Communist leaders. I can't imagine suggesting to the residents of the city back in 1989-90 that it's wrong to remove them. Monuments are not timeless artifacts. There is nothing unusual about their removal; in fact, in the context of world history it's pervasive. There is a history of monument removals in this country as well going back to the toppling of King George in 1776.
I visited the monument for the first time a couple of weeks ago. If I did before, I did so at a far less controversial time and I don't remember it. I came to the cemetery on December 8, 2023 to visit another monument located nearby. On the way out, I couldn't help but notice the very large Confederate monument. I absolutely took the opportunity to visit it and get some pictures, as I knew it wouldn't be there much longer. It was a bonus that it was a picture-perfect day. I also visited Section 16 because I have recently learned that most of the Confederate soldiers buried there were men who were wounded and captured in various battles in the Eastern Theater of the war, ended up dying in a hospital in Washington, DC. They were originally buried in the cemetery at the US Military Asylum (today it is the US Soldiers' and Airmen's Home National Cemetery). In 1900, these Confederates were removed to Arlington, where they were consolidated with other Confederates already buried in Arlington (maybe you've mentioned this before here, but just in case you haven't, here you go).
Anyway, I have mixed feelings about the removal of this momunent. I agree with you that it is a powerful teaching tool about the Lost Cause and that is was so pervasive that a monument to a rebellion against the United States could be placed in a national cemetery, along with soldiers who did everything they could to dismantle the Union. I am aware of the imagery on the monument of the body servant marching along with his enslaver and the soldier kissing a baby held by an enslaved woman. I agree with the monument's designer Moses Ezekiel and the United Daughters of the Confederacy that these people depicted were not soldiers, but representations of subservient Blacks, which is the world that they wanted. My feelings are that you can move the monument, but what about the Confederate graves? I think that is a lot messier. And what will be done with the vacated space where the monument will no longer be? I don't expect there are many, even with space at Arlington at a premium, who would wish to be buried in the middle of a bunch of White Supremacist traitors. I know I wouldn't.
On the other hand, moving this monument seems like too little and too late. It was erected when African Americans were second-class citizens and segregated out of society and justice. And Hilary Herbert, and I imagine many of the members of the UDC who saw it go up in 1914, never lived to hear of Rosa Parks, Martin Luther King Jr., and other Civil Rights crusaders. They may never have lived to see much challenge to what this monument stood for. I understand if the monument needs to be removed for where we are now and for future generations, but I think so much damage has already been done.
Thanks for the comment. Much of it resonates with me. Regarding the Confederates that had been buried at Arlington before 1914, it is also important to note that families and others that wished to pay their respects were barred from doing so during the Reconstruction Era, which tells us something about lingering bitterness.
I really don't see any possibility that the graves themselves will be touched. The foundation will remain and there is the possibility that something will be done to make it a bit more attractive. My hope is that interpretive markers are placed to help visitors understand why they are there, but I don't see a reason to relocate these remains. To your point, it would create even more bitterness and controversy than the removal of the monument itself.
When I worked for the National Archives, I received a call from a woman looking for records (I forget specifically which). The conversation I had with her eventually came to Confederate graves- in South Carolina, as I recall. She was upset because she believed that those graves would be dug up and removed. I told her repeatedly- and I didn't have to say this- "That is not going to happen." I don't know if it got through; either she didn't trust me, or she chose to hold on to boogeyman fears.
The only thing that concerns me in the case of Arlington is that space there is at a premium. A friend of mine does support the removal of the graves to make space for US veterans. Of course, it's just his opinion and he has no influence in the matter.
I think the question comes down to whether the need for additional land outweighs the outrage, that you rightly pointed out, would ensue. I've worked with staff members at Arlington over the years and I am struck by how committed they are to avoiding Section 16 at all costs. I can't imagine the military wanting to open up this can of worms again, but I've certainly been wrong about things in the past.
I wonder why the remains were not sent to Richmond's Hollywood Cemetery in 1900, but since they did not have a crystal ball into World War One through the First Gulf War and beyond, I guess I've answered my own question. I still say it is a mess to disturb the dead, but nobody listens to me.
Some UDC members and Confederate veterans voiced their disgust at the idea of relocating to Arlington rather than Hollywood Cemetery in Richmond or another Confederate cemetery. Some UDC members viewed re-internment in Arlington as a way to claim victory for the Lost Cause. And that is exactly what they got in terms of the monument itself. I think this is important to keep in mind, especially for those people who believe that the UDC's overall goal was to promote reconciliation for its own sake.
Glad you replied because it reminded me of something I meant to say earlier. I think the monument is in some ways a reconciliation monument. I think the UDC wanted to reconcile the White Supremacy of North and South, as much as they wanted to promote the message of the justification of the cause of the Confederacy. As I mentioned, that supremacy was well in place with Jim Crow and over 50 Blacks lynched in 1914. They certainly wanted their Confederate dead honored and remembered, but I think they were fine with the CSA as a memory as long as Black people didn't get in their way.
I wanted to pass along a comment by my 82-year-old uncle he wrote me after your first post about this. I wonder if the NPS would consider such a move? He makes an interesting point: What about issue of the burial of “traitors” next to those who fought with distinction and honor for the United States and are buried in Arlington National Cemetary, a place considered to be among the highest, most honorable places to be buried by those who fought or contributed significantly to our Nation?? Disinterment, removal, and reburial in Confederate Cemetary would be a significant cost and nuisance, but would make room for new honorific burials in a place running out of space. My father who was a Second Lt in WWI did not qualify to be buried there because he was not engaged in fighting in Europe. Perhaps a simpler solution might be to build a wall around section 16 with an opening on the Ft Myer side that is adjacent to the fort and then say this section is no longer part of Arlington National Cemetary. Allow people to visit from Ft Myer. Continue to maintain section (perhaps by a separate group) but not to place American flags on the graves. Harsh, yes but removal of statue seems to beg the issue.
Hmm, that is an interesting and tricky question. I'll admit that I'm of the mindset that they probably shouldn't have been buried there in the first place - but now that they are, and have been there for as long as they have, it's not the right thing to move them. I think we need to give them the agency to understand them as being fully aware of the cause they were serving (since some people seem not to want to come to terms with that). We should also accept that, just as we acknowledge that most Northerners did not fight for the purpose of freeing slaves, even if that was the effect of their fighting, most Southerners who fought for the Confederacy were aware that they fought to preserve a racial caste system. All that said, however, individual graves are still vastly different from a monument, and as Kevin points out, we can still keep the experiences of the individual soldiers in our thoughts, as well as in the context of the cemetery's history.
Thanks for taking the time to comment. Keep in mind that the NPS has no authorization beyond the grounds of Arlington House. Arlington National Cemetery is overseen by the military. As I pointed out in the post, there are no plans to remove or relocate Confederate remains and I agree with this decision. It's the monument that posed the problem. I suspect that once it is removed this issue will die down. The other thing to keep in mind is that there are very strict guidelines on the management of the land that prevents disturbances of any kind. A wall isn't needed in this case. Happy Holidays and thanks again for sharing uncle's thoughts.
Maybe we're going about it in the wrong way. Instead of taking it down Maybe we should add more monuments around it to reconcile with those who died fighting the US? Maybe monuments to the British Army and Navy circa 1775-1783? The Imperial German Army and the Wehrmacht would fit as well. The National Cemetery of the Pacific in Honolulu probably has room for a nice monument to the Imperial Japanese armed forces.
Obviously I'm being sarcastic, but the Confederate monument's defenders are trying to protect a monument in the middle of graves of those who defended the US to those whose purpose was openly and proudly to destroy the US. Might as well complete the set.
It's painful to see living monuments to the Lost Cause. As a first generation American growing up in this strange land and very strange society, I did not know why what it was so depressing I did not know the history as I am learning from you. As a sensitive child, I was simply an intuitive thinker. The Civil War was for me always a depressing subject best avoided.
But "living (not in museum) monuments" have testimonial power. Historywashing (must not use the-easier-to understand term "whitewashing") is as common as greenwashing and humane certified/organic washing in agricultural labels. It's what the always-forward-looking, future dollar value-obsessed, blame the minority political party or blame the minority race American culture does best: wash away overthink.
You said: "But 'living (not in museum) monuments' have testimonial power." I think we agree, but these monuments mean very different things to different people. It's hard to imagine African Americans seeing themselves and their history in this monument given the way that enslaved people are viewed--namely as "loyal slaves."
I like to remind people that monuments/statues are not history lessons. They are reminders of the collective values and view of the past of the individuals and groups that dedicated them. Thanks for the follow up.
Erasing the past reminds me of the Soviets. Dictating what may or may not be believed is like the Third Reich, but that seems not quite as applicable to this. It's also like a memory hole but for sort of opposite reasons. Unfortunately, fewer people would stop inside a museum housing the monument in question to read such an exhibit's posted narrative, than would go on one of your graveyard tours.
Thanks for taking the time to share your thoughts, but I honestly never know how to respond to references that compare what is happening here in the United States re: monuments with the former Soviet Union or Nazi Germany. I still remember visiting Prague a couple years ago and noticing the empty pedestals that once served as the foundations for monuments and statues that honored Communist leaders. I can't imagine suggesting to the residents of the city back in 1989-90 that it's wrong to remove them. Monuments are not timeless artifacts. There is nothing unusual about their removal; in fact, in the context of world history it's pervasive. There is a history of monument removals in this country as well going back to the toppling of King George in 1776.
I visited the monument for the first time a couple of weeks ago. If I did before, I did so at a far less controversial time and I don't remember it. I came to the cemetery on December 8, 2023 to visit another monument located nearby. On the way out, I couldn't help but notice the very large Confederate monument. I absolutely took the opportunity to visit it and get some pictures, as I knew it wouldn't be there much longer. It was a bonus that it was a picture-perfect day. I also visited Section 16 because I have recently learned that most of the Confederate soldiers buried there were men who were wounded and captured in various battles in the Eastern Theater of the war, ended up dying in a hospital in Washington, DC. They were originally buried in the cemetery at the US Military Asylum (today it is the US Soldiers' and Airmen's Home National Cemetery). In 1900, these Confederates were removed to Arlington, where they were consolidated with other Confederates already buried in Arlington (maybe you've mentioned this before here, but just in case you haven't, here you go).
Anyway, I have mixed feelings about the removal of this momunent. I agree with you that it is a powerful teaching tool about the Lost Cause and that is was so pervasive that a monument to a rebellion against the United States could be placed in a national cemetery, along with soldiers who did everything they could to dismantle the Union. I am aware of the imagery on the monument of the body servant marching along with his enslaver and the soldier kissing a baby held by an enslaved woman. I agree with the monument's designer Moses Ezekiel and the United Daughters of the Confederacy that these people depicted were not soldiers, but representations of subservient Blacks, which is the world that they wanted. My feelings are that you can move the monument, but what about the Confederate graves? I think that is a lot messier. And what will be done with the vacated space where the monument will no longer be? I don't expect there are many, even with space at Arlington at a premium, who would wish to be buried in the middle of a bunch of White Supremacist traitors. I know I wouldn't.
On the other hand, moving this monument seems like too little and too late. It was erected when African Americans were second-class citizens and segregated out of society and justice. And Hilary Herbert, and I imagine many of the members of the UDC who saw it go up in 1914, never lived to hear of Rosa Parks, Martin Luther King Jr., and other Civil Rights crusaders. They may never have lived to see much challenge to what this monument stood for. I understand if the monument needs to be removed for where we are now and for future generations, but I think so much damage has already been done.
Hi Bryan,
Thanks for the comment. Much of it resonates with me. Regarding the Confederates that had been buried at Arlington before 1914, it is also important to note that families and others that wished to pay their respects were barred from doing so during the Reconstruction Era, which tells us something about lingering bitterness.
I really don't see any possibility that the graves themselves will be touched. The foundation will remain and there is the possibility that something will be done to make it a bit more attractive. My hope is that interpretive markers are placed to help visitors understand why they are there, but I don't see a reason to relocate these remains. To your point, it would create even more bitterness and controversy than the removal of the monument itself.
When I worked for the National Archives, I received a call from a woman looking for records (I forget specifically which). The conversation I had with her eventually came to Confederate graves- in South Carolina, as I recall. She was upset because she believed that those graves would be dug up and removed. I told her repeatedly- and I didn't have to say this- "That is not going to happen." I don't know if it got through; either she didn't trust me, or she chose to hold on to boogeyman fears.
The only thing that concerns me in the case of Arlington is that space there is at a premium. A friend of mine does support the removal of the graves to make space for US veterans. Of course, it's just his opinion and he has no influence in the matter.
I think the question comes down to whether the need for additional land outweighs the outrage, that you rightly pointed out, would ensue. I've worked with staff members at Arlington over the years and I am struck by how committed they are to avoiding Section 16 at all costs. I can't imagine the military wanting to open up this can of worms again, but I've certainly been wrong about things in the past.
I wonder why the remains were not sent to Richmond's Hollywood Cemetery in 1900, but since they did not have a crystal ball into World War One through the First Gulf War and beyond, I guess I've answered my own question. I still say it is a mess to disturb the dead, but nobody listens to me.
Some UDC members and Confederate veterans voiced their disgust at the idea of relocating to Arlington rather than Hollywood Cemetery in Richmond or another Confederate cemetery. Some UDC members viewed re-internment in Arlington as a way to claim victory for the Lost Cause. And that is exactly what they got in terms of the monument itself. I think this is important to keep in mind, especially for those people who believe that the UDC's overall goal was to promote reconciliation for its own sake.
Glad you replied because it reminded me of something I meant to say earlier. I think the monument is in some ways a reconciliation monument. I think the UDC wanted to reconcile the White Supremacy of North and South, as much as they wanted to promote the message of the justification of the cause of the Confederacy. As I mentioned, that supremacy was well in place with Jim Crow and over 50 Blacks lynched in 1914. They certainly wanted their Confederate dead honored and remembered, but I think they were fine with the CSA as a memory as long as Black people didn't get in their way.
I wanted to pass along a comment by my 82-year-old uncle he wrote me after your first post about this. I wonder if the NPS would consider such a move? He makes an interesting point: What about issue of the burial of “traitors” next to those who fought with distinction and honor for the United States and are buried in Arlington National Cemetary, a place considered to be among the highest, most honorable places to be buried by those who fought or contributed significantly to our Nation?? Disinterment, removal, and reburial in Confederate Cemetary would be a significant cost and nuisance, but would make room for new honorific burials in a place running out of space. My father who was a Second Lt in WWI did not qualify to be buried there because he was not engaged in fighting in Europe. Perhaps a simpler solution might be to build a wall around section 16 with an opening on the Ft Myer side that is adjacent to the fort and then say this section is no longer part of Arlington National Cemetary. Allow people to visit from Ft Myer. Continue to maintain section (perhaps by a separate group) but not to place American flags on the graves. Harsh, yes but removal of statue seems to beg the issue.
Hmm, that is an interesting and tricky question. I'll admit that I'm of the mindset that they probably shouldn't have been buried there in the first place - but now that they are, and have been there for as long as they have, it's not the right thing to move them. I think we need to give them the agency to understand them as being fully aware of the cause they were serving (since some people seem not to want to come to terms with that). We should also accept that, just as we acknowledge that most Northerners did not fight for the purpose of freeing slaves, even if that was the effect of their fighting, most Southerners who fought for the Confederacy were aware that they fought to preserve a racial caste system. All that said, however, individual graves are still vastly different from a monument, and as Kevin points out, we can still keep the experiences of the individual soldiers in our thoughts, as well as in the context of the cemetery's history.
Hi Allison,
Thanks for taking the time to comment. Keep in mind that the NPS has no authorization beyond the grounds of Arlington House. Arlington National Cemetery is overseen by the military. As I pointed out in the post, there are no plans to remove or relocate Confederate remains and I agree with this decision. It's the monument that posed the problem. I suspect that once it is removed this issue will die down. The other thing to keep in mind is that there are very strict guidelines on the management of the land that prevents disturbances of any kind. A wall isn't needed in this case. Happy Holidays and thanks again for sharing uncle's thoughts.
A great post mark to the work you have done in this area.
Thanks, Dad. :-)