Here’s a curious thing I want you to think about for a minute:
Virginia’s Supreme Court ruled on Thursday that the city of Charlottesville can remove statues of two Confederate generals, including one of Robert E. Lee that was at the center of a deadly white nationalist rally in 2017.
The court overturned a 2019 Circuit Court ruling that the statue of Lee and a nearby monument to Stonewall Jackson could not be removed because they were protected by state law.
The Charlottesville City Council approved a resolution to remove the Lee statue in 2017. A group of citizens filed a lawsuit opposing the move, and white nationalists rallied in the city in August 2017 to protest the effort. White nationalists clashed during the rally with counterprotesters, one of whom was killed when a car driven by an Ohio man plowed into a crowd.
This originated with the Charlottesville, Virginia city council deciding that they wanted to remove statues of Confederate generals Stonewall Jackson and Robert E. Lee. Most of the town’s citizens presumably supported this idea, but many others were opposed to it. There were good faith arguments to be made on both sides of the issue. It’s unclear why the Confederacy should be celebrated and the statues are offensive to a lot of people. Yet, the history of Virginia can’t be disentangled from slavery, the most decisive battles of the Civil War, and the legacy of Jim Crow. Should Virginia hide that history or seek to contextualize it?
Yet, you’ll notice that the folks who strongly objected to taking down the statues were not normal people. They’re weren’t even necessarily Virginians or citizens of Charlottesville. They were first and foremost, white nationalists. They didn’t want contextualization. For them, the significance of the Confederacy isn’t a matter for historians to decide. The Confederacy is a live issue for them. They want it back. They want white supremacy back.
The Confederate statues aren’t worshipped exactly, but they’re inspirational. And their mere presence is a testimony to the persistence of the idea of the Confederacy.
This, of course, is one of the main arguments for removing them. They’re not passive even if they’re inanimate. Just standing there in a public space, they do positive harm, and not merely because they hurt some people’s feelings.
In the simplest formulation, the statues should go because white supremacists are willing to commit violence to prevent them from going. That’s the proof of harm.
Now, I’m not in favor of erasing the Confederacy or tearing down every reference to their side of the Civil War. I’m not in favor of teaching a completely one-sided version of history where the victors are completely virtuous and the defeated are unalloyed evil. But I do think it’s reasonable to set a basic standard that anyone who took up arms against the federal government in the defense of slavery should not stand on a pedestal in a public park or square. They can be treated like a full human in a museum setting where people can learn about their lives before and after the war, their reasons for taking the side they did, and whether or not they ever repented.
What shouldn’t be left open to interpretation is that they were wrong and their cause was wrong, and that war to preserve white supremacy and human bondage should never be replicated. When we teach about the Civil War, we should not be debating whether the right side won. Beyond that, the whole era is fascinating and ripe for every kind of debate. The suffering and sacrifice that went into winning the war will always merit memorials and celebration. But this serves to reiterate the point that the slavers’ revolt was irredeemably unjustified and irresponsible. A statue of a Confederate general doesn’t advance that goal, and that’s why modern-day slavers want to see them remain in place.
Statue of Robert E. Lee, Richmond, Virginia
Down in Richmond, the capital of the Confederacy, they will soon remove the giant statue of Robert E. Lee that sits on a 40-foot pedestal on Monument Avenue. All that remains is for the final appeals to play out.
But given how it’s been defaced by protestors, I doubt the white supremacists will miss it and I almost wish it would remain in its present state. As it currently stands, it’s sending exactly the right message.
But, truthfully, insulting the statue only works because we know it will ultimately succumb and be removed.
It’s also worth remembering that these monuments were erected in an act of defiance rather than is some solemn and respectful remembrance of those on the Southern side who fought bravely or who lost their lives in the war. In Charlottesville, the Jackson statue went up in 1921 and the Lee statue was erected in 1924.
Membership in the Ku Klux Klan peaked in 1925, at about five million members, including roughly 30,000 in Virginia. It’s not possible to segregate the original intent of these monuments from their enduring meaning.
Several of the Klaverns established within Virginia used the name of notable individuals to represent their respective chapters. The Roanoke Klavern, as well as the Graham, Virginia Klavern used Robert E. Lee as their namesake. Lee, a Virginian by birth, was the most famous Confederate general who commanded the Army of Northern Virginia during the American Civil War.
The Albert Pike Klavern was established in Norfolk. Pike was a Confederate Brigadier General and cavalry officer who led a group of American Indians during the War. Following the War, Pike moved to Memphis and became a member of the original Klan.
The John W. Daniel Klavern was established in Lynchburg in 1921. Daniel was a Major in the Confederate Army and was injured at the Battle of the Wilderness. Daniel would later serve as a member of the United States House of Representatives for one term and the United States Senate during the period of 1887 through 1910.
The William Byrd Klavern, No. 99 in Richmond, was established in 1925. Byrd, a wealthy slaveholder, is credited as being the individual who founded the City of Richmond in 1733.
I’m particularly appalled that Baltimore, Maryland erected Confederate monuments in 1948, the year President Truman desegregated the army. Many more Marylanders fought for the Union than the Confederacy, and even in the late-1940’s Baltimore was a heavily black city. This was always a campaign about the future rather than preserving history. General Lee never took Baltimore and erecting a statue of him there never made any historic sense. It was a signal put out by white nationalists.
Removing the monuments is a defeat for them for the same reason that putting them up was a triumph for them. Charlottesville will go ahead with their plans now. Richmond will soon follow.
Rate:
The Va Supreme Court opinion, which is technical and dry, is here: http://www.courts.state.va.us/opinions/opnscvwp/1200790.pdf
For lawyers and others who are interested in the legal issue but would prefer a little context, a helpful law review article from 2018 (which advocates allowing the removal of the statute) is here:https://www.virginialawreview.org/articles/payne-v-city-charlottesville-and-dillons-rule-rationale-removal/ (The author, Amanda Lineberry, was a student at UVA at the time).
Whenever someone tries to justify keeping these statues up I ask them 2 questions.
Always a pleasure to see the reply.
Lived in Baltimore for four years in the early “80s. Was less racially polarized than New York at the time but that’s not saying much. Became friends for a time with a black fellow from the inner city. Was really an education in prejudice from both sides. This is not a “both siderism” perspective. Just saying that when I brought him into my world, people looked at me like I was insane and when he brought me into his people looked at him in exactly the same way. Their comments around me were guarded. More than guarded — coded. He taught me to understand the code. A code that had grown up in the shadow of the ugly history of white supremacy and the Klan.
The “tell” in Charlottesville is that Stonewall Jackson was put up at all — much less first. He was a “God” based slaver who spouted the Bible while keeping every slave in line. He absolutely hated the North and its people. He knew Jesus believed in slavery. There is no reason to ever honor this despicable excuse for a human being.
I wonder if these male white nationalists are aware of the fact that women were primarily responsible for the erection of these monuments?