by Jake Spivey

Earlier this month, the Virginia Military Institute Board of Visitors voted to “expand the symbolism” of the Virginia Mourning Her Dead statue that memorializes the 10 VMI cadets who died in the Battle of New Market to include all former cadets who have died in battle. The board also approved a motion to “devise a program of contexualization for the painting The Charge of the New Market Cadets, a 21-by-18-foot oil-on-canvas painting showing the VMI Cadet Corps advancing across a wheat field at the pivotal moment of the battle.

In 1893 VMI had requested the VMI alumnus and internationally famous sculptor Moses Ezekiel to design a memorial for the New Market cadets. It was never meant as a memorial to alumni who died since the Civil War. The painting by Benjamin W. Clinedinst, a VMI alum and member of the National Academy of Art, conveyed the traits of duty, honor, country, and selfless service by showing the Cadet Corps doing together what no one cadet could do individually.

What does it mean to “contextualize” a work of art celebrating timeless virtues? Does it not strip away the original meaning and intent? What anyone living today the right to reinterpret the intentions of the original artists?

Merriam-Webster’s defines ‘contextualize’ as a transitive verb, “to place (something, such as a word or activity) in a context.” It defines context as, “the interrelated conditions in which something exists or occurs.” What “interrelated conditions” are required to explain young boys charging directly into the face of cannon and musket fire? What additional “meaning” does a memorial to the dead need when it has been created by a person who was actually there?

Does VMI contextualize Reggie Williams’ scoring records by adding that he played for a small Division I college and not a major conference program? Does it contextualize the recent success of the VMI football team by inserting that its winning record was aided by teams that could not play due to COVID-19 issues?

By contextualizing Virginia Mourning Her Dead, the Board of Visitors assumes Ezekiel, the combat veteran cadet and artist, would find it acceptable to add other dead alumni to his monument. It is not. The mural was painted for a single purpose, to show the fear the young boys experienced when charging into battle, and to commemorate the maturation of these boys into men.

Contextualizing the monument Virginia Mourning Her Dead and mural The Charge of the Cadets at New Market desecrates the conduct of the Cadet Corps in battle, it insults the memories of those who died, and it vitiates the reasons the artists conceived, created, and presented to VMI these two great works of art. Ezekiel fought at New Market. Painter Clinedinst, a Woodstock, Va., native, would have known many Civil War veterans and heard them tell what it was like to march into a hail of musketry and cannon.

One cannot contextualize what one does not understand. A 21st century person cannot know a mid-19th century person. The nation then was a country of subsistence farmers. In the 21st century, Americans have everything in abundance. One hundred and fifty-seven years after the battle, adding plaques, markers, or reciting hundreds of names of dead alumni cheapens these artists’ great works. There can be no other context for Virginia Mourning Her Dead.

Members of the Board of Visitors are either ashamed of the Institute’s tenuous connections with the Confederacy or bowing to the will of those who are.

Despite earlier decisions to scrub Stonewall Jackson’s visage from Post, the Board of Visitors is reluctant, no doubt for sound fiscal reasons, to remove every aspect of its association with the Confederacy. Nothing is gained from eradicating every vestige or reminder that VMI, its founders and principals were Virginians. Virginia was a slave-holding state as allowed by the Constitution and U.S. law. That’s the factual truth. It’s ugly and unsavory, but it’s there. Context won’t make it more palatable.

The Board of Visitors has demonstrated its willingness to destroy things for political expediency. Preparing for the inevitability of future political cleansing, it codified the interim “Commemorations and Memorials Naming and Review committee” into the permanent “VMI Building and Naming Committee.”

Donors beware. Should you decide to give, expect a thorough background investigation, particularly if you want to have your name on a building on Post. Expect too, that the day may come when your gift will be contextualized or sand blasted away.

Jake Spivey is a VMI alumnus.


Share this article



ADVERTISEMENT

(comments below)



ADVERTISEMENT

(comments below)


Comments

43 responses to “Dishonoring the Dead”

  1. Bob X from Texas Avatar
    Bob X from Texas

    Democrats agree with the Taliban, Hamas, and ISIS that it’s appropriate to destroy historical artifacts.

  2. James Wyatt Whitehead Avatar
    James Wyatt Whitehead

    The Board of Visitors will simply be buying some time with the move to contextualize the monument. Stonewall Jackson understood this: “the logical conclusion to retreat is surrender.” Contextualization is a form of retreat. At best it will buy a few more years of time, until the next attack on the grand work of art by Moses. There is no fallback position for the next attack. That monument is coming down. The BOV must fight and fight now. Surrender means the emergence of a new VMI and a burial of all old traditions. I would rather see the school closed than to endure years of endless humiliation.

    1. Stephen Haner Avatar
      Stephen Haner

      Stonewall Jackson was shot down by his own troops….might have been an accident…and plenty of retreats are followed by victory. There is a reason for the phrase “last stand” as it usually ends badly. The statue is already named “Virginia Mourning Her Dead” for goodness sake…New Market, Belleau Wood, St. Vith — no difference.

      Just what The Mob really wants of VMI remains unclear. Some suspect the real goals include totally ending the rat line, ending the single sanction honor code (or the code entirely) and breaking down the rigid hierarchy between the classes. Translation: no longer VMI.

      https://www.baconsrebellion.com/app/uploads/2021/05/Virginia-Mourning-Her-Dead.jpg

      1. James Wyatt Whitehead Avatar
        James Wyatt Whitehead

        Here is an example of the National Park Service version of contextualization. Jackson crossed over the river at Guinea Station near Fredericksburg. For years it was called one thing and now it is something new.
        https://emergingcivilwar.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/09/Jackson-Shrine-Death-Site.jpg

        1. Stephen Haner Avatar
          Stephen Haner

          I am not annoyed….

          1. James Wyatt Whitehead Avatar
            James Wyatt Whitehead

            When they come for Washington, Jefferson, Madison, Monroe, Henry, Marshall, Wythe, and Mason can we count on you then?
            https://wtop.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/10/capitol-square.jpg

        2. LarrytheG Avatar
          LarrytheG

          Well.. I was aware of the change – and I thought the “death site” description was more accurate and probably guided those who were more interested than a “shrine”.

          To move a little away – in the Fredericksburg/Spotsylvania/Thornburg region – so much “history” has been lost forever due to development.

          The NPS, to it’s credit tried to preserve as much as they could with the money they had and where opposition was low enough to acquire the properties.

          But many of the “battlefields” are preserved corridors not the entire battlefield and they properties on the boundaries are highly sought and bring top dollar for homes.

          Here’s a memorial that has no real controversy though (so can be done):

          https://encrypted-tbn0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcRgxcMhamMEiOXeEQSc5tVBM3J04XYd9G-eSA&usqp=CAU

          Simple memorial to the man from his troops – no agenda beyond that.

          ” THE DEATH OF SEDGWICK

          Maj. Gen. John Sedgwick, commander of the Sixth Corps, was one of the most popular senior officers in the Army of the Potomac. On the morning of May 9, 1864, Sedgwick arrived here to direct some minor redeployment of his troops. Ignoring warnings from his chief-of-staff, Sedgwick stalked about admonishing his men to cease worrying about the occasional fire of Confederate sharpshooters concealed in the woodline far to your front. “I am ashamed of you. dodging that way,” scolded Segdwick. “They couldn’t hit an elephant at this distance.” Shortly thereafter, a bullet slammed into the General’s face, killing him almost instantly.

          The shot that killed John Sedgwick, the highest-ranking Northern officer to die on a Civil War battlefield, came from a Whitworth rifle at a distance of more than 500 yards. The identity of the marksman who fired the fatal shot remains a mystery, although at least five Confederate soldiers later claimed responsibility.”

          1. James Wyatt Whitehead Avatar
            James Wyatt Whitehead

            Nice try. Contextulization needed for Maj. General John Sedgwick. Participated in the colonizer war with Mexico. Killed Seminole Indians in Florida. Killed many Cheyenne in Wyoming. Killed Mormons in the Utah War. There. Better now.

          2. WayneS Avatar

            Well played, sir.

          3. LarrytheG Avatar
            LarrytheG

            Well, that monument was pretty much from his troops with little or no agenda to other things.

            there were others:

            https://live.staticflickr.com/8006/29868571606_5a71fe6bc0_b.jpg

            http://www.cornwallhistoricalsociety.org/exhibits/civilwar/images/gettysburg.jpg

          4. Stephen Haner Avatar
            Stephen Haner

            Larry, the inventor of the double standard.

          5. LarrytheG Avatar
            LarrytheG

            No. What you folks don’t understand clearly is the difference sometimes. Just clueless and willfully ignorant…

          6. JAMES Avatar

            Words to live by.

          7. JAMES Avatar

            Great marksmanship. Snipers are either canonized or vilified depending on the passions of the writer.

          8. LarrytheG Avatar
            LarrytheG

            And well, it turns out his men were justified in being concerned about the snipers! That seems like an awfully long distance for the rifle technology of that day.

            I have tried visualizing where he stood and from what direction the shot came from – given what I think I know about the alignments of the battle lines as well as forest versus open fields. The stuff you real history guys often know.

    1. Stephen Haner Avatar
      Stephen Haner

      Sure, but note he is well recognized there:

      https://virginiamuseums.org/posts/daniels-arch–courtyard/2939/

  3. emjak Avatar

    There is an old saying “Actions speak louder than words.” And, the meanings of words are not limited to just dictionary definitions.

    Rather than discussing or debating the dictionary meaning of “context” and “contextualize,” it would be useful to see how those words are being used in actual situations involving controversies in order to better understand when and how those words are being used.

    Why not “contextualize” the use of the word “contextualize” by studying how the word is being used in a variety of actual situations involving controversies to see if you can discern any pattern or tendency? The results might be enlightening.

      1. emjak Avatar

        Thanks for the reference.

  4. Stephen Haner Avatar
    Stephen Haner

    I am not a VMI grad and should probably stay silent, but given the choice of adding more “context” to those notable works of art or removing them, I’d choose the former. In the case of the statue I think it a great idea and cannot imagine the artist would object (given the likelihood that otherwise it will end up draped at a sewage plant like the Monument Avenue pieces.) I can’t remember if VMI has a full list of its war dead posted, but do you really think Ezekiel would object to using his lovely statue to honor them all?

    I listened in on the seminar Jim spoke to, much of it. I think the organizers have a realistic grasp on what can and cannot be accomplished. This author is dreaming if he thinks his position will prevail. Take the deal, sir.

    1. WayneS Avatar

      I agree with everything you wrote.

  5. LarrytheG Avatar
    LarrytheG

    Real history IS context. It’s all important how an event or action fit in with other aspects of the world at that time.

    Where we have disagreements is when some want to memorialize SOME things in history, the history THEY think deserves extra mention or attention.

    The question is – when you do that in a public space – is that history equally relevant to others who occupy that space?

    Say, a black Cadet whose ancestors were slaves of the Fathers/Daughters of the very Cadets who engaged in that battle? Is that memorial a fitting one for that cadet or others with their own ancestral history?

    And that’s the problem with memorialization in general – not because someone reveres some historical event for themselves but what does it mean when they want that specific event to be put in front of others in a public space?

    When does it become an imposition to others that they don’t find relevant or even repugnant?

    1. tmtfairfax Avatar
      tmtfairfax

      It’s one thing to hold military leaders accountable for their actions and policies, but it’s just wrong to dishonor the memory of the common soldier.

      My paternal grandfather was gassed (mustard gas) by the German Army in October 1918 in France. He suffered the effects for the rest of his life. My dad always told the story how his father told him that he (my grandfather) said he didn’t hate the German soldiers on the other side. They were just like him, fighting a war for their country and risking their lives daily. My grandfather, who died in 1931, set a high standard.

      1. Eric the half a troll Avatar
        Eric the half a troll

        Well, at least the German soldiers were fighting FOR their own country instead of against it…

        1. Paul Sweet Avatar
          Paul Sweet

          This country was the United STATES in 1860. We didn’t become the UNITED States until sometime between WWI & WWII.

          The average Confederate foot soldier wasn’t fighting so wealthy plantation owners could have hundreds of slaves. He was fighting because Union forces were invading his state, destroying his corps, slaughtering his livestock to feed themselves, and burning his house and barns.

          The Civil War was fought in the South, except for a couple incursions into Maryland and Pennsylvania that didn’t end well for the Rebels. No Confederate general marched from Philadelphia to the sea destroying corps like General Sherman did in his march across Georgia. No Confederate general bragged that the Hudson River Valley would be left so that crows flying over it will have to carry their own rations like General Grant ordered General Sheridan to do to the Shenandoah Valley.

          1. Eric the half a troll Avatar
            Eric the half a troll

            No Union generals were traitors to their country.

          2. And Pensacola and Ft. Sumter? The first shots of the war – fired long before any of the crimes you allege…?

    2. James Wyatt Whitehead Avatar
      James Wyatt Whitehead

      What if the black cadet was the great great grandson of Chaplain Lois Napoleon Nelson of the 7th Tennessee Cavalry? Contextualize that right?
      http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-Y5RbuV6JBiI/UIRKM86TVYI/AAAAAAAAAQw/lkenyDiwYB8/s1600/Nelson+Louis+Napoleon.jpg

      1. LarrytheG Avatar
        LarrytheG

        Does he have a memorial at VMI?

        What would be the reason to not have one?

    3. John Harvie Avatar
      John Harvie

      Based on your premise there would always be someone offended by anything you displayed so consequently nothing could be displayed.

      Perhaps you will provide examples of what should and what shouldn’t be displayed. I anticipate an extensive list.

      1. LarrytheG Avatar
        LarrytheG

        No the bar is not “someone”. And it has to do with memorializing in a public venue versus a private one where people can voluntarily go see but not be forced to see in a public venue.

        So no, you’re not going to find everyone in love with Eisenhower or Roosevelt or Kennedy but none of them worked against an entire race of people either.

        I don’t think someone like Arthur Ashe or Harriett Tubman or Betsy Ross would offend – large numbers of people even if not everyone thought them wonderful or worth of a memorial.

        This really is not rocket science. Most of us know in our hearts what is good and what is not.

        You don’t put up memorials that are culturally offensive to large segments of the population.

  6. LarrytheG Avatar
    LarrytheG

    interesting article from that leftist rag WaPo:

    Georgia park wants to ‘tell the truth’ about world’s largest Confederate monument. Others want it gone.

    Memorial association CEO Bill Stephens says that pressure from the business world and growing scrutiny of Confederate symbols led to “the boldest step that has been taken at this park” since Georgia acquired it in the mid-20th century. Companies were pulling out of the park, Stephens said in an interview.

    But Georgia law bans officials from simply removing some of the Confederate tributes, and “bold” is the last word many would use for Stone Mountain Park’s response to changing times.

    “They’re a slap in the face,” said Derrica Williams, 50, who grew up visiting the park and now leads the DeKalb National Council of Negro Women. “They are trying to whitewash the fact that that park is a shrine to white supremacy.”

    https://www.washingtonpost.com/history/2021/05/26/georgia-stone-mountain-park-confederate/

    1. Stephen Haner Avatar
      Stephen Haner

      The battle in Texas now is over UT’s fight song, “The Eyes of Texas,” which has ZERO Confederate context or history, no offensive lyrics (unlike “Yellow Rose”) and merely is under attack because it was commonly used in minstrel shows ?! Some early 20th Century school newspaper editor wrote UT lyrics to “I’ve Been Working on the Railroad…” The people behind these battles are idiots.

      1. LarrytheG Avatar
        LarrytheG

        what media are you reading this in?

        1. Paul Sweet Avatar
          Paul Sweet

          Unfortunately it’s true. Google “The Eyes of Texas”.

          Protestors claim that it was performed in minstrel shows where blackface was common. It’s sung to the tune of “I’ve Been Working on the Railroad”, which some claim has a racist background. Also, the president of the other college in Lexington told his students “the eyes of the South are upon you” so that makes The Eyes of Texas racist.

          Hook ’em Horns! (or will somebody decide that’s also racist?)

          1. LarrytheG Avatar
            LarrytheG

            Is this another one of those “context” deals?

    2. tmtfairfax Avatar
      tmtfairfax

      And the Washington Post’s crack staff missed the story about Ralph Northam’s adult adventure in blackface not once but in two consecutive election cycles. The Post should criticize no one ever.

      1. LarrytheG Avatar
        LarrytheG

        yeah, the Post must have hid all that other racist stuff that Northam did before he got caught blackface, eh?

  7. Doug Monroe Avatar
    Doug Monroe

    “Contextualization” is pure nonsense. It is an arrogance of the present toward the past that insults the intelligence of all readers (who are wasting their time enough to read). In not much time, all such words on plaques will melt away in the presence of the greatness of the subjects (true heroes portrayed in such statues of Washington, Jefferson, Lee, Jackson, Lewis and Clark, Stuart, you name it). Contextualizing is a joke. Eventually, those that do it will look like fools to posterity.

    1. Stephen Haner Avatar
      Stephen Haner

      Seeking to amuse the grandchild this weekend we turned on Disney Plus and found “The Three Caballeros.” At the beginning there was this hilarious context statement about how such cultural appropriations and caricatures were offensive to some. The stupid statement she couldn’t read passed and she delighted in the movie! It was a big “so what…” Nonsense indeed, but the film remained on the service. I count that as a big loss for the Woke Mob.

      1. Matt Adams Avatar
        Matt Adams

        You will also find that same notice when you select Lady and the Tramp.

        Which I see a lot as my daughter loves that movie.

  8. Carmen Villani Jr Avatar
    Carmen Villani Jr

    Well stated Jake! Thanks for doing so.

Leave a Reply