Guest post: No glory shines with brighter gleam
Originally a comment by Sackbut on Its sanitized depiction of slavery.
The NYT article did mention the disturbance of gravesites as part of the reason, but that appears secondary.
The group, which is affiliated with an organization called Save Southern Heritage Florida, sued the Defense Department in U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia on Sunday, arguing that the Pentagon had rushed its decision to take down the monument and that it had circumvented federal law by not preparing an environmental-impact statement. It also said that the work would damage the surrounding graves and headstones. A hearing on the matter was scheduled for 10 a.m. Wednesday.
I hope this isn’t too much of a digression: there is a large Confederate memorial at the Alabama state capitol here in town. The Confederate battle flag that used to fly on top of it was taken down in 2015. The monument itself includes this inscription, over the four sides of marker:
North/Navy Side
“The seamen of Confederate fame startled the wondering world: for braver fight was never fought, and fairer flag was never furled.” Anon.
West/Cavalry Side
“The knightliest of the knightly race who since the days of old, have kept the lamp of chivalry alight in the hearts of gold.” F.O.T.
South/Infantry Side
“Fame’s temple boasts no higher name, no king is grander on his throne: No glory shines with brighter gleam, the name of “Patriot” stands alone.” C.T.R.
East/Artillery Side
“When this historic shaft shall crumbling lie in ages hence, in woman’s heart will be, a folded flag, a thrilling page unrolled, a deathless song of Southern chivalry.” I.M.P.O.
The monument was erected in 1898 by Historical and Monumental Association of Alabama & Ladies Memorial Association of Alabama, which I think explains some of the focus of the inscription on the perspective of war widows. The text is quite blatantly praising the men who fought for the Confederacy as “patriots”, “knightliest of the knightly race”, and “chivalrous”. I don’t think there is any effort to try to move it. There is also a statue honoring J. Marion Sims (“father of gynecology” who operated on slaves without consent or anesthesia) at the capitol, and recently a monument honoring his victims (titled “Mothers of Gynecology”) was unveiled; perhaps a counter-monument like that might be appropriate.
“Patriot?” They committed treason in defence of slavery.
Small wonder, then, that they are Trump supporters. The same inability to admit to being in the wrong, the same refusal to accept defeat, the same feelings of superiority over, and visceral loathing of, anyone not exactly like them.
I don’t know much about ancient Egyptian history, but some pretty impressive monuments were built for members of the ruling class in a master/slave society. >> https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slavery_in_ancient_Egypt
Shall we fire up the bulldozers?
Well, I would say that one major difference is that Egypt made no pretense of declaring individual rights. The United States relied on slavery to build a “free country.”. In order to do so, they implied that the black African slaves are not fully people.
As Samuel Johnson so brusquely pointed out.
Also compared to Egypt, Civil War history is still relatively fresh. It’s obviously not a fair comparison. I just wonder if removing historical artifacts from public spaces, particularly ones that are over a century old, is necessary given that the society that allowed such things has all but disappeared. Even if the Confederacy were to rise again, I doubt that slavery would be a factor. It’s a longshot in any event, but there have been some proposals to succeed from the union fairly recently. >> https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jefferson_(proposed_Pacific_state)
Most of the Civil War monuments to the Confederacy were erected decades after its defeat, yet celebrate the treasonous slaveholding society regardless; losing the war but attempting to win the peace, with much of the machinery of slavery surviving through the Jim Crow era. It would be like having had monuments to the Nazi regime being built in Germany during the 70’s, with a new set of less-than-genocidal laws still targeting Jews passed since the end of WWII. A century isn’t that long; look at the resistance in some quarters to the banning of the Confederate flag, which is sometimes joined by the Nazi flag at MAGA uprisings, etc. At this point the people carrying it know exactly what it means and what it stands for. It may be a “celebration of history and heritage,” but it’s a very particular heritage and history, that includes the belief that Black human beings were property.
The reason I brought up the statue of Sims was because I thought the response to it showed a creative path forward regarding the Confederate monument. The statue of Sims was not taken down; another sculpture was erected acknowledging the problems of his work. The new sculpture thus adds some context. (FWIW, the Sims sculpture has a sordid history, with some guy working to erect sculptures of him several places around the country, but that’s not relevant here.) So perhaps a nearby memorial honoring, I don’t know, people from Alabama who tried to prevent the Confederacy or who fought against it?
Re the use of the term “patriots”: I think it is understandable that the people who erected the monument might have persisted in thinking that “the nation” was the Confederacy, and thus “patriots” were people who defended it. The term “patriots” is also used to refer to people who engaged in an ultimately successful insurrection against British rule in the 18th century. I don’t like either usage; both tend to be used by people who consider “patriot” a compliment rather than a description.
Good point YNnB? Nazi remembrances have been banned, and if I’m not mistaken, outlawed in Germany and probably elsewhere, yet the historical record remains. I’m sure public monuments don’t add much to the documented history. I wondered this about Stone Mountain, would it make any difference to my perception of the implications of the Civil War if the carving were to be removed? Probably not. I’ve walked past it many times, but it doesn’t really inspire anything except for thoughts about the physical undertaking, or engineering it required. I’m sure it’s offensive to some, and if I think about it I can find the offensiveness, but it’s mostly just a curious feat of artwork to me. >>
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stone_Mountain
Sackbut @8
I think that’s a great idea. Maybe at Stone Mountain, instead of destroying it, they could update it in a way that puts it in historical context, perhaps emphasizing the progress that has been made since.
Also @8+9 The Crazy Horse memorial is along those lines, in what I understand is (sort of) a reply to Mt. Rushmore. >>
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crazy_Horse_Memorial
Similar to Dayton, TN, where a statue of William Jennings Bryan was recently joined by a statue of Clarence Darrow.
twiliter, I can’t see any mountain monument without thinking about destroyed ecosystems. I think we should leave the mountains alone. If we must carve monuments on mountains, couldn’t they be monuments to wildlife instead?
ikn @12 I have heard criticism of the Crazy Horse monument along those exact lines, and have also heard speculation that Crazy Horse himself wouldn’t have approved. Not because he was modest (although he might have been that too), but because of a reverence for the land.
The distinction between the Egyptian monuments and the ones like the monument being discussed here is not merely one of time, though. It’s also one of intent. Those monuments were attesting to the glory of Egypt and its leaders. This monument is attesting to the nobility of the Confederacy. The difference is that the former is legitimate–Egypt WAS glorious in its time, as a keystone of the developing human society, even if they had the wrong end of the stick about divine leadership. The Confederacy never had a shred of nobility–they were slavers, the supporters of slavers, and the dupes of slavers, to a man. Ergo, the monument itself is an outright lie, and should be ground to dust for that reason alone.