I am pleased to see that military officials are giving the question of what should be done with the Confederate monument at Arlington National Cemetery serious consideration.
I believe Fredericksburg and Winchester, Virginia are the closest, but they are much too small. I can't imagine anyone, apart from the new SCV museum in Tennessee, that would want to touch this particular monument with a ten-foot pole.
I recently finished reading Dixie’s Daughters by Karen Cox. There was some focused discussion about this monument. Cox made the point that while the UDC promoted this monument as reconciliatory, they favored reconciliation as long as it met their conditions, the main one being: Confederates must not be referred to as traitors, but as patriots, defending the Constitution.
While monuments are created to honor and commemorate, I think this particular monument has much to teach about the Lost Cause narrative, but not in its current location.
It’s such an important distinction, but you can take it further. While the UDC and others attempted to frame the ceremony around reconciliation, the monument itself is anything but that. It is an unapologetic celebration of the Confederacy and whitewashing of the past.
It strikes me that your more important point in this post is that because people of the past memorialized an event in a particular way does not mean we have to follow their lead. I think you are right. We need to move the Confederate memorial from Arlington. It represents a view of the past the country no longer owns and I’m not sure it ever did, at least not universally.
If we accept that premise then I think the next question, which you are also raising, is how do we appropriately remember the Confederate States of America?  I personally think it is as an alternative vision of what the country have been; a vision that the nation soundly rejected in 1865
This pretty much nails it. The only point I would add is to remind people that no one memory narrative dominated at any given time. Certainly you can find examples of reconciliation between white northerners and southerners at the turn of the twentieth century, including at the dedication of the monument in Arlington, but that narrative doesn't speak to everyone involved. There were plenty of people on both sides who objected to former enemies embracing one another. As historian Caroline Janney reminds us, many of these examples of reconciliation were public facing and masked lingering discontent behind the scenes. And as someone else mentioned, this does not take into consideration how African Americans viewed the Arlington dedication and other public commemorations.
I am very conflicted about this issue. Please don't misunderstand, I have no doubts about the Lost Cause purpose of this particular monument. But the size and scale of this one---as well as its location---calls out for it to be used as a teaching tool, rather than just destroyed. I wonder if there is a place to put a small interpretive center, perhaps on the outside of Jackson Circle?
I think there is a way to dismantle it and still use it as a teaching tool. As you know, monuments are not intended as teaching tools, but rather as moral instruction. As long as it remains on site it will be interpreted as a site of reverence for the Confederacy and its cause. I see no way around that, regardless of the educational possibilities. Thanks for the comment, Jim.
Point taken. Part of my discomfort here is that many of these are serious (if politically charged) works of art, and I am a bit bothered by destroying a work of art. I mean, just to take an obvious example, Picasso's Guernica is a serious and disturbing work of art. I'd hate to set a precedent under which someone decided to destroy that. But I accept that my concern is a low probability thing. I would love to see (as suggested below by another reader) a "Museum of Confederate Memory" in which things like this monument can be properly displayed and interpreted.
In so far as this and the other monuments have to do with reconciliation, it is only between two parties to the conflict, Northern and Southern Whites. But there was a third interested party, Blacks, enslaved and free. The monuments reflect a rejection by Southern whites of reconciliation with Blacks.
This is an important point. Whenever I bring groups to the site I talk about the segregation of federal office buildings ordered by Woodrow Wilson as well as the broader racial history of the D.C. area at the time.
It needs to leave Arlington and should not have gone there in the first place. My local Virginia college town quietly returned a Confederate monument to the UDC without controversy. The museum option is attractive but politically problematic.
What college, Paul? I’m an alumna ‘74 of Madison College (now James Madison University) and our main building is named in honor of the racist Woodrow Wilson, who spoke at the dedication of the rebel statue at Arlington. I’d love to see that changed!
While there may well be an alternate universe where these monuments could be displayed without the “lost cause” glorification or myths, I don’t know where that can peacefully exist with reality. There is no context of the confederacy as a noble cause. Honoring rebels not fighting for greater ideals is not generally how war is remembered.
I am also not comfortable with destruction, melting them down for some repurpose or giving them to black museums. Placing them at Civil War sites cannot help but enhance and romanticize the confederacy, which I despise. Maybe they should be placed at a confederate prison site with context for the outsized ego and error that allowed both.
There is no easy, just, or best answer imo, but they should absolutely not be at Arlington, in our Capitol, or supported by taxpayers.
It would be great to have a museum dedicated to the legacy of the Confederacy. The monuments would be placed outside in a landscaped setting. The context of when they were created, where they were installed and why would be included. I am not sure if this would be feasible in the current political environment.
I couldn't agree more, Steve. The current political environment certainly poses any number of challenges as does the cost of interpreting these monuments.
Is there a confederate military cemetery somewhere? If so, that might be a great place for it.
Hi Lisa,
I believe Fredericksburg and Winchester, Virginia are the closest, but they are much too small. I can't imagine anyone, apart from the new SCV museum in Tennessee, that would want to touch this particular monument with a ten-foot pole.
I recently finished reading Dixie’s Daughters by Karen Cox. There was some focused discussion about this monument. Cox made the point that while the UDC promoted this monument as reconciliatory, they favored reconciliation as long as it met their conditions, the main one being: Confederates must not be referred to as traitors, but as patriots, defending the Constitution.
While monuments are created to honor and commemorate, I think this particular monument has much to teach about the Lost Cause narrative, but not in its current location.
It’s such an important distinction, but you can take it further. While the UDC and others attempted to frame the ceremony around reconciliation, the monument itself is anything but that. It is an unapologetic celebration of the Confederacy and whitewashing of the past.
It strikes me that your more important point in this post is that because people of the past memorialized an event in a particular way does not mean we have to follow their lead. I think you are right. We need to move the Confederate memorial from Arlington. It represents a view of the past the country no longer owns and I’m not sure it ever did, at least not universally.
If we accept that premise then I think the next question, which you are also raising, is how do we appropriately remember the Confederate States of America?  I personally think it is as an alternative vision of what the country have been; a vision that the nation soundly rejected in 1865
Hi Michael,
This pretty much nails it. The only point I would add is to remind people that no one memory narrative dominated at any given time. Certainly you can find examples of reconciliation between white northerners and southerners at the turn of the twentieth century, including at the dedication of the monument in Arlington, but that narrative doesn't speak to everyone involved. There were plenty of people on both sides who objected to former enemies embracing one another. As historian Caroline Janney reminds us, many of these examples of reconciliation were public facing and masked lingering discontent behind the scenes. And as someone else mentioned, this does not take into consideration how African Americans viewed the Arlington dedication and other public commemorations.
I wish this had an edit function. That last sentence is missing a could
I am very conflicted about this issue. Please don't misunderstand, I have no doubts about the Lost Cause purpose of this particular monument. But the size and scale of this one---as well as its location---calls out for it to be used as a teaching tool, rather than just destroyed. I wonder if there is a place to put a small interpretive center, perhaps on the outside of Jackson Circle?
I think there is a way to dismantle it and still use it as a teaching tool. As you know, monuments are not intended as teaching tools, but rather as moral instruction. As long as it remains on site it will be interpreted as a site of reverence for the Confederacy and its cause. I see no way around that, regardless of the educational possibilities. Thanks for the comment, Jim.
Point taken. Part of my discomfort here is that many of these are serious (if politically charged) works of art, and I am a bit bothered by destroying a work of art. I mean, just to take an obvious example, Picasso's Guernica is a serious and disturbing work of art. I'd hate to set a precedent under which someone decided to destroy that. But I accept that my concern is a low probability thing. I would love to see (as suggested below by another reader) a "Museum of Confederate Memory" in which things like this monument can be properly displayed and interpreted.
In so far as this and the other monuments have to do with reconciliation, it is only between two parties to the conflict, Northern and Southern Whites. But there was a third interested party, Blacks, enslaved and free. The monuments reflect a rejection by Southern whites of reconciliation with Blacks.
This is an important point. Whenever I bring groups to the site I talk about the segregation of federal office buildings ordered by Woodrow Wilson as well as the broader racial history of the D.C. area at the time.
It needs to leave Arlington and should not have gone there in the first place. My local Virginia college town quietly returned a Confederate monument to the UDC without controversy. The museum option is attractive but politically problematic.
What college, Paul? I’m an alumna ‘74 of Madison College (now James Madison University) and our main building is named in honor of the racist Woodrow Wilson, who spoke at the dedication of the rebel statue at Arlington. I’d love to see that changed!
William and Mary in Williamsburg
While there may well be an alternate universe where these monuments could be displayed without the “lost cause” glorification or myths, I don’t know where that can peacefully exist with reality. There is no context of the confederacy as a noble cause. Honoring rebels not fighting for greater ideals is not generally how war is remembered.
I am also not comfortable with destruction, melting them down for some repurpose or giving them to black museums. Placing them at Civil War sites cannot help but enhance and romanticize the confederacy, which I despise. Maybe they should be placed at a confederate prison site with context for the outsized ego and error that allowed both.
There is no easy, just, or best answer imo, but they should absolutely not be at Arlington, in our Capitol, or supported by taxpayers.
It would be great to have a museum dedicated to the legacy of the Confederacy. The monuments would be placed outside in a landscaped setting. The context of when they were created, where they were installed and why would be included. I am not sure if this would be feasible in the current political environment.
I couldn't agree more, Steve. The current political environment certainly poses any number of challenges as does the cost of interpreting these monuments.
I also really like this idea.