Statue Controversy a Fixation of the Elites

Twilight of the Confederate statues

Last night I engaged in a deep and satisfying discussion about the Charlottesville tragedy with a group of men with whom I have met monthly over some 15 years to discuss politics and philosophy. Although I would describe those in attendance last night as  seven moderate liberals and one libertarian/ conservative (me), we shared common ground not only in our rejection of far Right extremism but in our concern about violence emanating from the far Left as well as the nation’s increasing political polarization. And, while I was the odd man out on the issue of statues honoring Civil War heroes — the others mostly favored removing them — I was impressed by the range and nuance of views expressed, and by the fact that everyone seemed to acknowledge that competing principles were at play. It was a far superior, and more civil, discussion than anything I have witnessed in the media, and it gives me hope that the nation is not as deeply divided as we tend to believe.

Naturally, as all conversations inevitably do, the discussion turned to President Trump, in particular his pronouncements on the subject of the Charlottesville violence and the fate of the Civil War statues. Some of my friends speculated that Trump at long last had gone too far, lunging so far beyond the pale of civilized discourse, that he had virtually no chance of being re-elected.

I said I wasn’t so sure. While America’s intelligentsia, whose views are magnified by media loudspeakers, is united in its visceral opposition to Trump, we have little sense of what the working class thinks. If Trump’s economic policies succeed (or if by plain dumb luck the economy continues to improve on his watch), and if the unemployment rate continues to decline, and the working class and middle class start seeing solid wage gains for the first time in a decade, he might well get re-elected. Indeed, I suggested, Trump might even see an increase in Hispanic and African-American votes. After all, the primary preoccupation of the working class is jobs and wages. 

I had no data to back up my propositions; I was simply voicing a hunch. Fortuitously, however, a NPR/PBS NewsHour/Marist poll of 1,125 adults across the country was published this morning that confirms that hunch.

The headliner finding was that only 35% of adults approve of “the job Donald Trump is doing as president” while 51% disapprove. I’m not sure how insightful that question is given the fact that some might support his policies despite finding him grotesque as a person and inadequate as a leader. (As coincidence would have it, I talked to my brother this morning, and he expressed that very opinion.)

Regardless, here’s what’s remarkable. Among those who approve of Trump, the racial breakdown was as follows:

White – 43%
African-American – 10%
Latino – 25%

According to exit polls, Trump claimed 8% of the African-American vote last year, and 29% of the Hispanic vote. For all the controversy, he has lost no ground with minorities. Let’s see what happens as the economy continues to grow.

Will Trump’s stance on the Civil War statues, roundly denounced in the media, hurt him with voters? The pollsters asked the following question: “Do you think statues honoring leaders of the Confederacy should: Remain as a historical symbol, or Be removed because they are offensive to some people?”

Sixty-two percent of all Americans want to leave the statues alone, compared to 27% who want to get rid of them — a margin of more than two to one. Among lower-income households (making less than $50,000 per year), 65% favored letting them remain as a historical symbol. Among non-college graduates, 68% favored letting them remain. Among the racial/ethnic groups, the breakdown looked like this:


Latinos apparently don’t feel like they have a dog in this fight. Like whites, they favor leaving the statues alone by a 2 1/2-to-one margin. The most astonishing finding was that the African-Americans community is evenly divided on the issue. For all their hyper-ventilating outrage, talking heads on CNN and MSNBC evidently do not speak for all African-Americans. My guess is that working-class African-Americans have other concerns. Agitation over Civil War statues is the luxury of the well fed, well dressed and financially secure.

Update: Some of the poll data was scary and, frankly, hard to believe. When asked, “From what you have heard or seen about each of the following, do you mostly agree or disagree with their beliefs: the white supremacy movement?” Mostly agree:

Whites – 3%
African-Americans – 4%
Latinos – 7%

More African-Americans agree with the beliefs of the white supremacy movement than whites? C’mon. Must be a fluke. But, then, look at the answers to the question asking respondents if they mostly agreed with “white nationalists”:

Whites – 4%
African-Americans – 3%
Latinos – 11%

And the “Alt-Right”:

Whites – 4%
African-Americans – 4%
Latinos – 11%

And the Ku Klux Klan:

Whites – 1%
African-Americans – 2%
Latinos – 6%

??????


Share this article



ADVERTISEMENT

(comments below)



ADVERTISEMENT

(comments below)


Comments

49 responses to “Statue Controversy a Fixation of the Elites”

  1. Hamilton Lombard Avatar
    Hamilton Lombard

    It was good to see a current poll on the topic. Perhaps not surprisingly, the Northeast and Midwest were most in favor of removing the statues and the South was most in favor of keeping them.

  2. Peter Galuszka Avatar
    Peter Galuszka

    Your discussion group. All white guys? Thought so!!!

    1. LarrytheG Avatar
      LarrytheG

      well .. more than that.. even.. they apparently are “elites”… too

    2. Hate to disappoint, Peter, but one of our number is African-American.

      1. Steve Haner Avatar
        Steve Haner

        But are they all….Wahoos?

        1. Haha, I’m the only Wahoo.

  3. djrippert Avatar
    djrippert

    I wonder if the truth behind what happened in Charlottesville will ever come out. I doubt it. The MSM narrative is that a group composed entirely of white supremacist Nazis and KKK adherents came to Charlottesville to violently resist the Charlottesville City Council’s decision remove the statues causing the fiasco to occur. That fits the leftist template so it will probably go unchallenged.

    The truth, of course, is more nuanced.

    Start with the fact that the City Council vote was a sham, a “show vote”. Since 1950 Virginia state law prohibits localities from “disturbing” war memorials. In 1998 the General Assembly amplified the law making it clear that statues of Confederate War leaders were a category of war memorial and could not be removed or moved by local leaders. The City Council of Charlottesville would have been better advised to pass a measure promising to colonize the Moon, at least that’s not specifically banned by state law.

    The second issue to arise is the dissembling statements by Terry McAuliffe that the alt-right hooligans were better armed than the Virginia State Police. This can be seen as either an admission of incompetence on the part of Gov McAuliffe and state safety director Brian Moran or an outright lie. Given this picture of a Virginia law enforcement officer riding through Charlottesville in a Lenco Bear Cat armored vehicles last Saturday I am going to lean toward “outright lie” …

    https://twitter.com/RonaldBailey/status/896415129528664064

    The Pentagon provides military supplies to local law enforcement agencies as part of the 1033 program. Here’s what the Virginia Pilot had to say about that program in 2014:

    “Across Virginia, the program has sent 1,760 assault rifles and 116 12-gauge shotguns to local and state agencies, according to Department of Defense records. In addition to Virginia Beach’s mine-resistant vehicle, known as an MRAP, 15 other cities and counties, including York County and Franklin, took delivery of the armored vehicles, according to the records.”

    I assume that the assault rifles sent by the Pentagon don’t just look like machine guns, they are machine guns.

    So, why did the axis of stupidity – Gov Terry McAuliffe, Public Safety Director Brian Moran and Charlottesville Mayor Michael Signer – order the police on the scene to “stand down”. The very day after Charlottesville there was an Alt-right protest in Seattle. The inevitable counter-protesters showed up. Law enforcement kept the two sides separate and no injuries occurred, no property damage was done. I guess the elected officials in that case didn’t ask their law enforcement officers to “stand down”.

    Charlottesville was preventable tragedy. Had the City Council resisted the temptation to grandstand by holding a sham vote none of this would have happened. Had McAuliffe and the other public officials in charge of our safety acted with minimal competence the confrontation would have been about as noteworthy as the similar confrontation the next day.

    Hubris catalyzed by incompetence … it’s the way of our elected officials in Virginia.

  4. LarrytheG Avatar
    LarrytheG

    DJ – your monday morning quarterbacking ignores quite a few other demonstrations in cities that got way out of hand when the police used force and weapons..

    Clearly when you have that many armed people .. already present and roaming the city – and you then talk about who has automatic weapons.. do you not understand the potential for gunfire ? Easy to look back.. not so easy when it was happening. Mistakes are made – yes..

    Did McAuliffe screw up or lie? Maybe.. but in the bigger scheme of things.. what happened in Charlottesville could have easily turned into a city-wide riot with “militia” with weapons roaming the streets and others rushing with their weapons to the fray…

    don’t think that is possible.. listen to the people worried about Richmond, guy.

    Where were you during the city riots in the 1960’s guy? do you remember what the police did in those cities when that happened? Read up a little.

    1. djrippert Avatar
      djrippert

      There are protests and counter-protests every week here in DC. The cops show up in force, keep the two sides separated and 99% of the protests go peacefully. When they don’t, the cops arrest everybody in sight.

      1. LarrytheG Avatar
        LarrytheG

        DJ – when hundreds or thousands of people show up with semi-automatic weapons.. the dynamics of “arresting everyone in sight do change.

        Can you imagine on TV – images of the police with guns drawn and aimed… “arresting” hundreds of people? Where have we seen that before?

        1. djrippert Avatar
          djrippert

          If the police can’t enforce the laws because the law breakers are armed then I guess we need to declare martial law and bring in the Army. The good news is that we can lay off a lot of policemen and policewomen if our elected officials are unwilling to use the police to maintain law and order.

          Yesterday there were at least 7 demonstrations across the US. The biggest, in Boston, was far bigger than the fiasco in Charlottesville. Guess what? The police maintained order in Boston and everywhere else.

          Here’s an LA Time article of first hand descriptions of what happened in Charlottesville …

          http://www.latimes.com/nation/la-na-charlottesville-witnesses-20170815-story.html

          Let’s be honest – our elected official screwed the pooch in Charlottesville. Isn’t it about time they were taken to task for their incompetence?

  5. LarrytheG Avatar
    LarrytheG

    Here’s the actual poll by the way – which is not quite the high points that Jim has chosen to highlight…

    check the views of blacks in the Jim Crow south…. it’s different from all blacks especially those who live in regions where there are no Confederate statues..

    goo.gl/9bsVd6

    the blacks that live in the South and whose fathers and grandfathers were the victims of widespread systematic discrimination… have a more visceral perspective than blacks who left the south and whose daily lives to not encounter Confederate monuments – as well as KKK/neo-nazi groups …

    You have to want to KNOW these things.. and not go looking for selective things to confirm your biases..

    Those who prefer to talk about “elites” and not the experience of Southern Blacks themselves – have made a choice.. about what to pay attention to… and I can assure you the blacks in the south are not “elites”.

    1. Hamilton Lombard Avatar
      Hamilton Lombard

      Where are Blacks surveyed broken down by region in the link?

  6. LarrytheG Avatar
    LarrytheG

    they’re not broken down directly by race and region.. so that’s not correct and I am wrong about that … it’s broken down by region and by race but not both.
    I was wrong to say that.

  7. Steve Haner Avatar
    Steve Haner

    Jim, you put way too much faith in polling. Out of 1,100 adults a small group of 3 or 5 percent would agree with just about any ridiculous statement the pollster put in front of them. The moon is made of green cheese. George Washington was a transvestite….anything. And you cannot even be sure of the self-identifications people provide….hence that big fat margin of error, which means 3 percent could be zero. If they broke people down by region and racial ID, those samples start to get very tiny….

    Time to amend it to lies, damn lies, polls and statistics…..when a result really runs counter to common sense, just don’t believe it. Polls are not only not infallible, they are inherently very fallible.

    1. Steve Haner Avatar
      Steve Haner

      Now, I’m talking about those small number anomalies you cited. On the big question, the issue of taking down statues, I think those results are credible, and I largely think so because it came from a sample that hardly expressed confidence in President Trump.

  8. Does anyone remember that the Museum District is named for the several-square-block area around the Virginia Museum, its theater and grounds, those of the Virginia Historical Society’s “Battle Abbey,” and the marble palace that is the United Daughters of the Confederacy? All these with outdoor gardens and parking lots galore. And all of these were built on the site of the rambling old collection of buildings that was, until the 1930s, the Old Soldiers Home for Confederate Veterans? And that the old Chapel from those Old Soldiers days remains? What more appropriate place could there be to relocate the Confederate monuments of Monument Avenue? And bring Arthur Ashe home to Byrd Park, where he actually played, while we’re at it.

  9. First, the South lost. Statutes for Lee and Jackson, etc. belong in a military museum. The rest shouldn’t have been put up. What other country loses, is taken over, and has memorials to the losers?
    I’m from the South. Get rid of them. Why do people want reminders of losing a war? Its more than 100 years ago. I’m not alt left, alt right, or alt control delete and whatever flavor or label every one has, it should be common sense they were not put up and/or at least removed a long time ago.

    1. LarrytheG Avatar
      LarrytheG

      Proud of you V N !

    2. Reed Fawell 3rd Avatar
      Reed Fawell 3rd

      Very bad and counterproductive idea. This is ripping out the heart, guts, and soul of America. Unlike the Thugs, Ignoramuses, and Ideologues on the right and left who think they are Gods, we are not.

      For example read Peggy Noonan’s “Trump’s Tangle of Rhetorical Inadequacy” in todays WSJ.

    3. djrippert Avatar
      djrippert

      I agree with your sentiment but there are statues of Comwallis in London.

  10. Steve Haner Avatar
    Steve Haner

    Since moving to Northside RVA I’ve wanted to move the A.P. Hill statue in the middle of the Laburnum-Hermitage Road intersection because of the traffic issues it creates. Nothing to do with who is depicted on the pedestal. But I learned recently that he is buried there, moved there from Hollywood Cemetery in 1891. Moving a grave is a bit more of an issue than moving a statue. Of course the statue could go and the grave remain. And that would help the traffic issue a bit.

    The people in Maryland inspired me to read up on Roger Taney and remind myself about the particulars of Dred Scott. Now, the Dred Scott decision was a major spark for the war, but it would have been however the court decided that question. What was unforgivable about the decision was the underlying rationale that no one of African descent could be a citizen at all, even somebody who was free at the time of the Revolution. That was a 7-2 decision that was apparently pushed by President Buchanan and reopened wounds going back to the Missouri Compromise.

    But Taney was Chief Justice for 28 years, the successor to John Marshall, and he gave the oath to seven presidents – including Lincoln – still the record. His contributions to his profession were significant. He also wrote the opinion in Ex Parte Merryman. Because, he stayed loyal to the Union and his view of the Constitution. Yes, he was a racist, but by today’s standards so were most white Americans of the day.

    I’m sorry the people of Maryland did that with so little discussion, but it is local matter to me. I’m glad I took a few minutes to remind myself that the history is complicated, fascinating, and deeply relevant to today. I’m sure every tour guide that ever led a group by that statue discussed the Dred Scott case, and now that will not happen.

    1. LarrytheG Avatar
      LarrytheG

      Steve – it was even worse than judged not a citizen… ” Scott’s temporary residence outside Missouri did not bring about his emancipation under the Missouri Compromise, which the court ruled unconstitutional as it would “improperly deprive Scott’s owner of his legal property”.

      He was not only not a citizen – he was “property” owned by someone.

      I would submit that the idea he was not only not a citizen but merely “property” is what motivated so many even in that era , to believe that was morally wrong.. in a country ostensibly formed to protect and preserve freedom for all.

      Those who defended the “right” of any state to determine that some of it’s residents were not free people but instead “property” … was at the heart of whether a State had the right to do that or not…

      The idea that the owner of the “slave” – like Jefferson – could procreate with the slave to produce more “property” made it an even worse abomination.

      To defend that as the “right” of the State to decide it .. and fight a war over it… and then put statues up to memorialize it.. .. in the slave-holding states to “memorialize history”.. then 150 years later to show up armed to the teeth to “defend” that concept with “free speech”… and to have people say that this issue is really about “elitists” inciting “trouble” … and “both sides are guilty”.. have we lost our collective minds?

      apparently a number of us have…including the POTUS…

      1. TooManyTaxes Avatar
        TooManyTaxes

        I have always struggled with the legal reasoning behind the Dred Scott decision. At that time, the state of the law was such that the United States had both free and slave states. In the latter, human slavery was permitted. Hence, a slave owner could move from Virginia to Alabama, taking his “property” with him. Courts in Alabama would uphold the slave owner’s property rights because slavery was legal in Alabama.

        But in free states, slavery was not only illegal, but not recognized. The law and the courts did not recognize slavery. Hence, an enslaved black person taken to say Pennsylvania was not a slave in the eyes of the law in Pennsylvania. That should end the discussion. I don’t see where the federal courts have the authority to require a Pennsylvania state court to recognize slavery in Pennsylvania by declaring the “slave” was still bound to the master. Otherwise, the effect is Pennsylvania has become a slave state by a decision of a federal judge. Unacceptable.

        Conceptually, it’s like the situation where a resident of Colorado legally buys pot. But then he goes to Nebraska, is caught with the Colorado pot, and winds up before a judge. The Nebraska judge would say I don’t care about what’s legal in Colorado, possession of marijuana in Nebraska is a crime. Colorado rights to the possession and use of pot stop at the border.

        Put aside morality, Dred Scott was poorly decided. The 2s had it right, and the 7s had it wrong.

    2. Reed Fawell 3rd Avatar
      Reed Fawell 3rd

      Good discussion re Taney-

      It is important to remember what we consider racist today lived long after the Civil War among the most celebrated Progressives of the times – Teddy Roosevelt and Woodrow Wilson who not only accelerated but deepened the segregation laws, as well as Booker T. Washington, and Franklin Roosevelt who had racist views by today’s standards, as do many progressives today who have turned the wisdom, philosophy and accomplishments of Martin Luther King upside down. And who indeed threaten to topple his legacy.

      1. LarrytheG Avatar
        LarrytheG

        Reed – no matter how long vestiges of racism persisted nor who still supported it nor what political labels they had – it was wrong and today we are still fighting it – and we still have people defending the “right” of people to support the concept of it disguised as “free speech” armed with semi-automatic weapons.

        accusing those who strongly and resolutely oppose it as “elites” and “leftists” “inciting” the racists is both bizarre and irrational.

        If there is any doubt of that – take a look at the people who are disavowing the POTUS…

        People are no longer going to stand for it .. it’s that simple and those of us who cannot seem to decide and still want to equivocate and about “both sides”, shame on you.

        1. Reed Fawell 3rd Avatar
          Reed Fawell 3rd

          Larry –

          Actually, your arguments along with those CA&W are sure proof of my point and that made by many others – people need to confront daily, and not hide from, the fact the we are all sinners, and that our times are full of injustice and cruel acts, and stupidity, and unintended consequence, that we today must somehow try to rise above and deal with in ways far above our ability to fully understand or appreciate – hence one can learn and appreciate as best we can by the constant reminder of Lincoln, Sheridan, Grant, Lee, Stonewall Jackson, F. Douglass, McClellan, and all the rest. A people have no identity without their history in all its complexity and paradox, and will never learn the full truth of it, but can only have any chance of learning what they need to Make Their Own Decisions without your interference or mine if these monuments are torn down and thrown on the trash. My God, how many times has that been tried by how many bright and ignorant people of how many eras, only many matters far worse. Remember the burned witches of Salem, truth is they were crones and widows with property their very proper neighbors wanted to steal. Lets not burn and hide those books and facts, nor the terrible deeds done to innocents by Yankees in the name of perserving the Union and freeing the slaves. We have no special virtue or wisdom that allows us to destroy any part of our past, thereby depriving others of their right to learn and grow from it.

          1. Reed Fawell 3rd Avatar
            Reed Fawell 3rd

            Correction.

            but can only have any chance of learning what they need to Make Their Own Decisions without your interference or mine if these monuments are NOT torn down and thrown on the trash. My God, how many times has that been tried by how many bright and ignorant people of how many eras, only many matters far worse? Remember the burned witches of Salem, truth is they were crones and widows with property their very proper neighbors wanted to steal. Lets not burn and hide those books and facts, nor the terrible deeds done to innocents by Yankees in the name of SAVING the Union and freeing the slaves. We have no special virtue or wisdom that allows us to destroy any part of our past, thereby depriving others of their right to learn and grow from it.

          2. LarrytheG Avatar
            LarrytheG

            Reed – I did go and read Peggy Noonan’s essay…

            ” When you tear down statues, you tear down avenues of communication between generations. Statues teach. You walk by a statue of Robert E. Lee with your 7-year-old, and he asks who that is. You say he was a great general. When he’s 8, on the same walk, you explain the Civil War. When he’s 10 you explain what was at issue, and how Lee was not only on the losing side but the wrong side. This is part of how history is communicated. We’re not doing it so well in our schools. It will be sad to lose another venue.”

            It’s a noble thought but no one in their right mind thinks we should put up a statue of Adolf Hitler with the swastika to “teach” history nor that the people of Germany should keep such statutes to “teach” history to their kids.

            We have books and museums for history.. we don’t put up statues of blacks being lynched so that kids can “see” that history and ask questions about it.

            Many of these statues were erected by racists during the Jim Crow Era.. their purpose was not to “remember history”.. it was to “remind” blacks and to provide aid and comfort to those who still
            think racism is a legitimate policy.

            We do not or should we “memorialize” that history in public spaces when they are such an affront and insult to the people whose parents and grandparents were the direct victims of such racism and that some feel it is present and practiced in various practices and policies.. today.

            racist symbols of the past – are not “history” .. they are not the proper way to teach or remember history.. when they remain in public squares and places.

          3. Reed Fawell 3rd Avatar
            Reed Fawell 3rd

            Larry –

            Hint –

            Robert E. Lee and Stonewall Jackson are not Hitler.

            To suggest as such is a monumental insult. It again proves that this ethic cleansing of other Americans’ history must be resisted at all and any costs.

  11. LarrytheG Avatar
    LarrytheG

    What’s always been mind-boggling to me is the folks who don’t seem to differentiate from groups that openly hate entire races of people and openly advocate policies of hate .. arm themselves to the teeth with semi-automatic weapons and then go essentially invade a town they do not live in …. to “exercise their free speech rights”.

    And then.. we have folks who say that when others show up to oppose them – that the others are “doing the same thing”… well if they did – it would certainly be true.

    We better hope that doesn’t actually happen. to date, I’ve not seen the”left’ groups show up similarly armed to the teeth with semi-auto weapons and if and when that day arrives when both sides show up with both armed to the teeth- what will we do?

    Expect the police to stop it?

    how would the police “stop” it? Go out and arrest everyone? For what?

    do they wait until the shooting starts then try to arrest them?

    Can anyone else see just how irrational this line of thinking is?

    Do we actually want to see opposing groups showing up across the country – both sides armed to the teeth to “demonstrate” and the police standing by similarly armed or even more heavily armed and “waiting” for “trouble” to start?

    How in the world do folks get to this point in their “thinking”?

    Somewhere in the middle of this insanity ..we need some adult “thinking” and get off this “elites are responsible for this” idiocy.

    the white supremacists groups are an anathema to most Americans even if they were unarmed.. armed with semi-automatic weapons – they are a clear threat… no different than if 20 carloads of strangers show up at some random town armed similarly to say they were going to “exercise” their “free-speech” rights.

    We have lost our minds if we think this is about “free speech”.

    At some point – we recognize the reality of the threat they pose and act to safeguard public safety BEFORE those who oppose them also start showing up similarly armed.

    The current dialogue is like we’ve all taken a stupid pill.

  12. As far as divisiveness of the Country, seems to me the reason we got Trump was because the Left decided to “kick butt” and condemn as deplorable about 60% of America (including fossil fuel use, etc.). The Left had rising expectations of an election win against Trump, and felt they they could afford to go far Left and take America to the new directions that the progressives want to go. This attitude gave us a disenfranchised working class (the “Deplorables”) and anyone who does not agree with the Progressives. Now we have rising expectations on the conservative side of the aisle, various factions hoping to push back on the progressive agenda that appeared to be an insurmountable trend to the Left just a few months ago.

    1. LarrytheG Avatar
      LarrytheG

      re: the “deploreables” . there is no question that was one of the dumbest statements on record but you need to remember that more than the “left” are involved.. 3 million more people voted for Clinton even with all the negatives which led to her loss and Trumps win.. and yes… he did win and is legitimately the POTUS …

      But you cannot govern the country with 30% support from Americans and you cannot govern when the business community, much of the GOP , our military and much of the rest of America do not agree with his support of white supremacy by equating it as no worse than “leftists”.

      In terms of the “progressive” agenda.. they do not have the Presidency nor either house of Congress and not even the Congress can seem to go forward on legislation because the “right” cannot even agree among themselves – all the while blathering about the “left”..

      we need adults here.. and what we got is a bunch of kids who cannot govern even when they have the majority..

  13. djrippert Avatar
    djrippert

    If Richmond had its act together there would be more statues not fewer statues. The added statues could tell “the rest of the story”. Starting with the Native Americans of Virginia, progressing through John Smith, the War of 1812, both sides of the US Civil War (Ulysses S Grant played a bigger role in the history of Richmond than RE Lee whether Richmonders like it or not), Jim Crow, the Civil Rights movement, Doug Wilder, Arthur Ashe, etc. That would celebrate history rather than The Confederacy. Tourists would come to Richmond to go on the Virginia History walk as they went passed the statues that told the whole story of the Commonwealth of Virginia.

    The problem I have with the Confederate statues is that they seem to dominate the cities which have them. Like it or not the South did lose and lost badly. Where is the statue of Robert E Lee surrendering to Grant at Appamattox Court House? Where is the plaque celebrating the leniency that Grant and Lincoln showed the rebel army and its leaders?

    If you’re going to document history with statues you have to document all aspects of history. Vastly over-emphasizing the leaders of a lost war fought for the worst of reasons doesn’t document history it celebrates an evil and destructive period of our history.

    1. Anyone can commission a statue, and anyone can purchase a plot of land to put it. The reason there are so many Confederate statues in Richmond and other Southern cities is that those who mourned the lost cause were motivated to organize construction of the monuments. This comes from the Wikipedia entry on Richmond’s Monument Avenue:

      Monument Avenue was conceived during a site search for a memorial statue of General Robert E. Lee after Lee’s death in 1870. City plans as early as 1887 show the proposed site, a circle of land, just past the end of West Franklin Street, a premier downtown residential avenue. The land was owned by a wealthy Richmonder, Otway C. Allen. The plan for the statue included building a grand avenue extending west lined with trees along a central grassy median. The plan shows building plots which Allen intended to sell to developers and those wishing to build houses on the new grand avenue.

      On May 29, 1890, crowds were estimated at 100,000 to view the unveiling of the first monument, to Robert E. Lee.

      The Lee statue originated as part of a real estate development!

      In recent years, Richmonders have erected statues to African-American heroes Arthur Ashe, Maggie Walker, and Oliver Hill. The statues are smaller, not set on giant pedestals like the Lee, Jackson and Stuart statues. But there’s no reason they couldn’t have been — it’s just a question of how big you think, and how motivated you are to go out and raise sufficient funds.

      I know a Richmond restaurateur, Joe Melito, who has been working for years and years to raise a 9/11 memorial in Henrico County. I don’t know many other people who think that that Henrico County is a particularly apt place to put a 9/11 memorial, but Melito is passionate about it, and he’s been plugging away at it, raising money and talking to the County for a location. If that memorial ever gets erected, it will be due to his unstinting efforts.

      It’s a lot easier to tear down someone else’s statue than take the painstaking effort required to raise funds, commission an artist, and find a public location to erect your own. I admire those who build a lot more than those who tear down.

      Update: In Portsmouth, a fellow by the name of Nathan Coflin wants to raise money to erect a statue to a female rapper who goes by Missy Elliott. He writes: ““Who better to encapsulate the culture and spirit of the city enshrined in a new monument than Grammy Award winning rapper, dancer, and record producer Missy ‘Misdemeanor’ Elliott? … Getting this statue put up will be a lot of work and you may ask yourself is it worth it? I say yes and ask you to join me in letting us work it. Together we can put white supremacy down, flip it and reverse it.”

      Rappers aren’t my cup of tea. But if Coflin can raise the money, bully for him.

      1. LarrytheG Avatar
        LarrytheG

        also in Wiki:

        ” Jim Crow laws were state and local laws that enforced racial segregation in the Southern United States. Enacted by white Democratic-dominated state legislatures in the late 19th century after the Reconstruction period, these laws continued to be enforced until 1965. They mandated de jure racial segregation in all public facilities in the states of the former Confederate States of America, starting in 1896 with a “separate but equal” status for African Americans in railroad cars. Public education had essentially been segregated since its establishment in most of the South after the Civil War. This principle was extended to public facilities and transportation, including segregated cars on interstate trains and, later, buses. Facilities for African Americans were consistently inferior and underfunded compared to those which were then available to European Americans; sometimes they did not exist at all.”

        it’s unlikely that the elected would have allowed black “heros” during that era… right?

        and if I recall – there was a huge outcry when a statue of Mr. Ashe was installed… right?

        https://www.splcenter.org/sites/default/files/whoseheritage-timeline150_years_of_iconography.jpg

        Part of our problem here is that we won’t admit the truth of how blacks were being treated at the time statues of Confederate “heroes” were being put up much less the fact that any proposed Black “heroes” statues would never see the light of day on places like Monument Ave.

        we need to acknowledge WHY there are few statues of black heroes.. it’s NOT because they did not exist nor folks would not build memorials to them.. the reality was they’d not be approved for public places.

    2. Reed Fawell 3rd Avatar
      Reed Fawell 3rd

      “If you’re going to document history with statues you have to document all aspects of history. Vastly over-emphasizing the leaders of a lost war fought for the worst of reasons doesn’t document history it celebrates an evil and destructive period of our history.”

      Don makes a very important point here, one I largely endorse. This includes his statement that “if Richmond had its act together there would be more statues not fewer statues.” I presume that includes the idea that the addition of the statutes would be intended to represent all the interests and players to the horrible civil war. And that that includes the hope and intention that the added statues could tell “the rest of the story.” But how is that “telling of the rest of the story” accomplished.

      Is this telling not very very tricky business? Far more tricky than the victors telling of what happened in Wars between alien nations, although the latter also present devilishly hard issues and decisions too. Here, too even, success involves far more than telling one sides view of morality and who was right.

      For example, the First World War was declared to be the war to end all wars.

      In fact that First World War settled nothing. The way of its “ending” only compounded the core of the dispute exponentially. The root of the problem with that war’s false resolution was Woodrow Wilson righteous demand that the Germans be given the impression that the German people were not unconditional defeated, and that his outlined Grand Principles of peace would fairly and equitable solve all outstanding disputes and grievances, and put in place the means to avoid any future war between the parties.

      In fact Woodrow Wilson’s terms that halted the fighting and gained German ascent to put down their arms would later dishonored (or outright refused) by America’s European Allies who in fact later imposed very harsh punitive terms on the Germans. The German people were lied too, and tricked. The German’s rightly felt tricked into a false peace by the allies in order to allow the Allies to gain the upper hand, and then, as false victors, impose horrific terms that Germany could not meet without starvation and chaos.

      A terrible muddle ensued. It metastasized into a failed Weimar Republic that dropped its citizens and their despair and hopes, into the hands of brutal fascists regimes in Germany and in Italy and Spain (to add to the Communists in Russia). Only these regimes, the populations thought, could bring order out of chaos, and at least make the “trains” run of time.

      These solutions to the chaos of the 1920s and 1930s, solutions that indeed for a time appeared to bring order under the fascists and that of the communists – also had very substantial popular and elite support at the highest levels within both the United States and Britain. This support continued right up to the declarations of War in both countries. Even to a significant degree thereafter. So the World spiraled out of control, into a dark age that could, and did in many parts of the world, last for most of the rest of the 20th Century, a dark age who’s left overs dog us still.

      In the short term end, however, only the unconditional and brutal defeat and long term occupation by the Allies of the Axis powers after WW 11 could accomplish the semblance of a real long term peace, all least between the Allies and Axis Powers. But even that included subjugation of Eastern Europe under Stalin’s boot and Tito’s in the Balkans and Franco in Spain, and nearly the Communists take over via “elections” of France, Italy, and Greece.

      In the end, Franco and DeGaulle and even Tito, and the heavy American presence and financial support of Western Europe saved the day, giving us the time, money and stability to buy the time needed to rebuild Europe and Japan and nurture them back to relative health and then to prosperity, all of which was the critical first step to “winning the Cold War.” And yet all of that still unresolved the “left over problems” from not only the Second World War but the First World War the set the stage for the Second World War, an much else too, from China to Korea, just for starters.

      What does this tell us about the America’s Civil War, its beginning, duration, and its left overs? What does it tell about the complexities of ending wars. Especially wars between kin, brothers and sisters, fathers and mothers? Can ideologues, and force, and passion and emotions, and anger and ignorance solve these problems? Can one side of the family impose solutions on the other by erasing the others history. Or by forcing the winners version of the truth on the other side?

      Tomorrow I will try to suggest some answers to those very complicated questions. And how those answers relate to these statute issues today.

  14. I don’t know if you noticed or not, Larry, but Jim Crow has been dead in Virginia for 50 years. There’s been plenty of time to build statues of African-American heroes, should anyone be so inclined. I cited examples of three, just in Richmond.

    All I’m saying is that it’s a lot easier to tear down than it is to build up.

    As for the association of Civil War statues and Jim Crow, I’m not as persuaded of the connection as you are. Have you visited Northern cities? Perhaps you have noticed, they have lots of Civil War statues as well — of Northern generals, of course. Ever visit Gettysburg? Nothing in the South surpasses in magnificence the memorials to fallen Union soldiers. I have heard it said — haven’t verified it, but heard it said — that the driving force behind all this statuary was the recognition in the North and South that the Civil War generation was dying off. There was a widespread desire on both sides to honor veterans of the conflict. People were honoring their heroes, not buttressing Jim Crow.

    1. LarrytheG Avatar
      LarrytheG

      Oh I did notice that Jim Crow is gone but the point is that the statues were put up in the Jim Crow era – and ONLY statues of the Confederacy, NOT statues commemorating slaves or people who tried to help them like Harriet Tubman and many others… who risked their lives – and died in their efforts. Do you even know their names much less see any statues commemorating them?

      In fact Blacks were being LYNCHED at the time the Lee Statue was erected!

      you’re back to equivocation and equivalencing here.. i.e. – “they were doing statues up North too “… yes.. and they also put up statues of people like Harriet Tubman also.. where is Richmond’s statue of Tubman?

      you just insist in a blind eye here… I don’t get you guys.. you go through every contortion in the book to deny the obvious..

      Why were no heroes of the blacks put up in Va at the same time they were putting up heroes of the Confederacy? Do you REALLY THINK it was because no one wanted to do it?

      what does it take for you to admit the obvious here?

      this would be comical if it were not illustrating why the issue is so divisive…

      you just have folks who just refuse to admit the COMPLETE history of the era of the statues.. It’s damn hard to believe Lee was being commemorated as a hero – at the same time blacks were being savaged in Virginia…

      you’re right.. they did not propose statues.. they were in fear of their lives.. and had other things to worry about.. shame on them…

  15. TooManyTaxes Avatar
    TooManyTaxes

    I get that many blacks are offended and even upset by statutes of high-level Confederate leaders, both civil and military. I get how many southern white people, who have no animosity to blacks and would find racism offensive see these statues as memorials to their history, including family histories.

    At the same time, I get how some whites see the statues as symbols of “a better time,” when blacks did not have equal rights as white people. For them, all things Confederate translates into all things racist.

    I also see a difference to a degree between statues located in public parks (often erected well after the Civil War and during/after the rise of hate groups like the KKK) and statues located on battlefields, in cemeteries or in museums. Removal of the former can be a reasonable act, most especially when done after input from a diverse group a local stakeholders who worked out a compromise position.

    If we did deeper and speak honestly, a sizable number of people, blacks and others, who want the statues moved essentially take the position that the “evil” intent that caused the city statues to be erected cannot be ignored. Evil stays evil even when many, probably most, of the supporters of the statues have no evil intent. They don’t see the statues as any more than remembrance of history and historical figures.

    Yet, the same people seem to be willing to give a pass to the Democratic Party, which clearly was the party of racism. The Democratic Party was the Party of succession, fought against black-controlled state governments, supported the KKK, disenfranchised black voters, kept black children in separate and non-equal schools. Louisiana Democrat Douglass White wrote Plessy v Ferguson. Woodrow Wilson increased the level of segregation in the Capital and in the federal government. Southern senators fought the Civil Rights acts in the 1950s and 1960s. Senator Byrd from West Virginia was a member of the KKK, as was Justice Hugo Black. Lots of nastiness.

    Clearly, the Democratic Party changed direction and was forgiven by most blacks. Makes sense to me. Yet, isn’t someone inconsistent that many blacks and many others who have given the Democratic Party as pass because of changed behavior don’t seem willing to give a pass to those who support keeping the statues for historical reasons and who do not support racism, but in fact civil rights for all?

    This issue is much more complex than is being presented to the public. Again I’m not arguing to keep the statues, but puzzling as to why only Democrats seem to get passes for previous bad behavior. Evil conduct stays evil and unforgivable unless done by a Democrat. Just ask the Washington Post.

  16. I’m … puzzling as to why only Democrats seem to get passes for previous bad behavior.

    You’re not really puzzling. You know why. It all makes sense if you see journalists in the Mainstream Media as “Democratic operatives with bylines.”

    1. LarrytheG Avatar
      LarrytheG

      ” Yet, the same people seem to be willing to give a pass to the Democratic Party, which clearly was the party of racism. ”

      don’t be confused by labels.. the labels switched – look at their political philosophies.. who were the white “conservatives” that supported Jim Crow and racism and who were the white people who were opposed to Jim Crow and racism?

      the thing with the labels is dishonest.

      It was those of conservative philosophy during the civil war that favored slavery .. and the same Conservatives have defended it through the decades.

      what do you call the white people who opposed slavery? Republicans? 😉

      If the Dems “‘switched” does that mean the Republicans did also?

      1. TooManyTaxes Avatar
        TooManyTaxes

        Larry – you don’t get it. The Democrats are given a pass to change their views and NOT be held accountable for prior views that are found totally unacceptable today. But Southerners who have abandoned their historic views and support civil rights for all, but want to acknowledge their family’s service in the Civil War or the history of their hometown are NOT given the same pass.

        The LEFT will not allow them to be seen as good people whose ancestors gave life, limb and property and want to remember that.

        I had ancestors who fought for the British in the Revolution and were exiled to Canada after the war. I love the United States and am proud of our War for Independence. But at the same time, I’m proud of my heritage.

        I think your argument is heads-Dems win, tails Southerners lose.

  17. LarrytheG Avatar
    LarrytheG

    Let me guess… it was the racist Dems who were out lynching the blacks – at the same time the “good” Republicans were just doing their thing with the Confederate statues.. they had no idea the Dems were out lynching folks while they were statue building, right? If they had actually known.. they would have been agast.. and outraged.. right?

    so the Republicans.. they never realized all this nasty racist stuff was going on and did not understand how some would connect the statue building with racism.. LORD!

    Well that certainly explains why they are still to this day are clueless about it!

    Now I’m starting to understand… 😉 it was all a mistake! a misunderstanding!

    see.. that’s how these things get out of hand…..

  18. Reed Fawell 3rd Avatar
    Reed Fawell 3rd

    ARTHUR HERMAN is one of the finest historian’s writing today. If I could recommend only one book to a son or daughter seeking the best education possible from one book, I would tell them to read Arthur Herman’s book THE CAVE AND THE LIGHT.

    Herman has lived in C’ville for the past 14 years. His opinion on this Confederate statute controversy is found at:

    http://www.nationalreview.com/article/450622/virginia-confederate-statues-robert-e-lee-stonewall-jackson-virtues-honor-sacrifice-valor?

  19. LarrytheG Avatar
    LarrytheG

    “When Jack Christian and Warren Christian were growing up in Richmond, there was no mistaking their great-great-grandfather, one Thomas Jonathan Jackson. There he was, always, literally much larger than life, sitting atop his beloved warhorse Little Sorrel at the prominent intersection of Boulevard and Monument Avenue. Always the famous Confederate general. Always Stonewall Jackson.

    While debate swirls in Virginia and across the country about whether to honor Confederate leaders like Jackson and Gen. Robert E. Lee — whose statue in Charlottesville was the focus of deadly weekend violence — the Jackson descendants have made up their minds on the issue. In an open letter to Richmond Mayor Levar Stoney published Wednesday by Slate, they not only advocate for the removal of their great-great-grandfather’s likeness but also for the removal of the other three Confederate statues on Monument Avenue, which is on the National Register of Historic Places.

    “While we are not ashamed of our great-great-grandfather, we are ashamed to benefit from white supremacy while our black family and friends suffer,” the Christians wrote in the letter. “We are ashamed of the monument.”

    Also in the letter, the brothers say the Monument Avenue statues, which also include Lee, Gen. J.E.B Stuart and Confederacy President Jefferson Davis, are “overt symbols of racism and white supremacy, and the time is long overdue for them to depart from public display.”

    https://patch.com/virginia/fredericksburg/s/g7ijl/stonewall-jacksons-great-great-grandsons-weigh-in-on-his-statue-icymi?utm_source=alert-breakingnews&utm_medium=email&utm_term=weather&utm_campaign=alert

  20. Viral photo shows peace in Lynchburg, “If I were KKK would I hold you like this?”

    A Monument Guardian hugging a BLM lady. This tells the real story about those who want to preserve our heritage

    http://wset.com/news/local/viral-photos-shows-peace-in-lynchburg-if-i-were-kkk-would-i-hold-you-like-this

  21. “This issue is much more complex than is being presented to the public. Again I’m not arguing to keep the statues, but puzzling as to why only Democrats seem to get passes for previous bad behavior.” Thanks, TMT, for bringing up a sore subject. My great grandfather, who opposed secession in NC but fought for his State, as he perceived it his duty, then supported the Republicans (and even ran for political office as one) and the Constitutional amendments after the War as part of “moving on” — which earned him no end of castigation. Today he would be the first to say, you support the policies and the political party that will do the most to help your larger community: your State, and all the people who live in it. And he would be appalled at the Trump apologists out there today with their rationalizations for the President’s misconduct, regardless of their party, too.

    I grew up in the Richmond Fan District near all those monuments. To my mind they dressed up an otherwise ho-hum neighborhood avenue — Richmond was the former Capitol of the Confederacy after all and Monument Ave was popular with tourists — and there are other statues, by the way, along Park Avenue. I did not think of what the statues commemorated in racial terms, but artistically the whole Avenue was a bit over the top — equestrian statues and fancy homes are like that. Yes, it was a real estate development and a statuary garden, with the added benefit of being a pretty commuter route to downtown.

    Now you want to remove these because they memorialize a fight by Southern whites to preserve slavery? We all know the motivation for that War wasn’t quite that simple — but granting that slavery was the primary bone of contention, and even to the extent it might help to extirpate the later “Lost Cause” mentality, it does nothing for a uniquely gaudy and giddy neighborhood in Richmond to remove its most prominent art/architectural features — in servitude to the taskmasters of political correctness of the current day.

    There is no excuse for Jim Crow. That entire time deserves to be a blot on both political parties, particularly on the Republicans, who abandoned Reconstruction mid-stream, in 1876, withdrew the military from the South and turned their backs on the blatant civil rights abuses of the day, in order better to compete with the resurgent Democrats in other parts of the Country. Who knows these names today: Rutherford Hayes, Grover Cleveland, Samuel Tilden? You want to know where Jim Crow came from and why the Nation allowed it, read about those days! Read about what the Democrats pushed for nationally by way of racial policies. Read about the efforts to have the Supreme Court gut the 14 and 15 amendments (Plessy, anyone?) in ways that make the Taney court’s decision about Mr. Dred Scott a masterpiece of inescapable judicial logic by comparison.

    And we are going to expunge and sanitize all this ugliness by removing the decorations from Monument Avenue?

  22. LarrytheG Avatar
    LarrytheG

    Anyone who thinks this is about a double standard of “bad behavior” on the part of people has missed the boat entirely in my view – and , in fact, in most people’s view who do see the memorials in a negative light. It’s not about who did what – it’s about WHY they did it and what the statues today – represent.

    Let’s also point out that virtually all who would like to see the memorials removed or relocated are NOT talking about ALL memorials to ALL leaders who owned slaves – either. That’s another attempt to distract.

    Finally, there continues to be persistent attempts to CONFLATE the issue into more than the real core problem – which is the reason WHY they were put up in the first place AND the reason why the KKK/Neo Nazi TODAY prize them and defend them – for the SAME reason most were originally put up for. THAT’S the reason for the sentiment to remove.. nothing else.. despite attempts of others to conflate it.

    The statues represented White Supremacy when they were originally put up and today they represent White Supremacy to the KKK/Neo Nazi types.

    Those who say they were not put up with that intent – are just ignoring the undeniable documented history .. that even the descendents of the men in the statues themselves acknowledge and in turn join the others who want them removed. They are proud of their ancestors and ashamed of how the names and likenesses of their ancestors have been adopted as symbols by racists.

    Virtually all of these statues were erected during the Reconstruction Era when Jim Crow laws were also being enacted. The statues were erected to send a message to the blacks who were at the same time were being harshly discriminated against – systematically – as well as physically assaulted, jailed and lynched. It was an ugly part of our history that occurred intentionally in conjunction with the erection of the statues.. it was not some coincidence. The statues were intentionally part of the Jim Crow policies.

    The other thing that I marvel in dismay at is how the “defenders” basically ignore how the vast, vast majority of blacks themselves say they feel and instead point to “elitists” and “leftists” and “Antifa” and BLM .. tiny minorities just about anyone EXCEPT the millions of ordinary blacks.. who are not affiliated with any of these groups.

    Do we care how MOST backs themselves feel about the issue?

    Doesn’t it really say something about whites today and our racial relationships with blacks when whites don’t even want to know how blacks feel about the monuments or if they do know just reject the blacks opinions preferring instead to point to Black Lives Matter as the “blacks”… they want to listen to on racial issues.

    So we have whites who exhibit racial animosity towards blacks – as an entire race – when they say that it’s what BLM says and does – not the majority of ordinary blacks.. that they are basing their views on.

    You do have to ask – what white folks today really want .. in terms of racial harmony… do they want it?

Leave a Reply