"A Confederate statue in Arlington National Cemetery" Topic

A Confederate memorial in America's most honoured cemetery is coming down. But what should be done with it?

The Guardian: link

Then based on this thought process shouldn't all the confederate dead be dug up and moved to a confederate cemetery?

"Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it."--George Santayana

It is a marvelous piece of art. And conveys some truths about the Confederacy. Hopefully it can be displayed someplace sane.

It will wind up in a crate next to the crated Ark of the Covenant.

I think I said this was going to happen in an earlier round of the new game show: "Let's Remove Those statues!". Yes, they will demand the Confederate dead be removed next.

"Doin' Right Ain't Got No End"

It should be left right where it is.

In the interests of efficiency, all representational statuary on public property should be replaced with abstract sculpture with the title on a screw-in brass plaque in the base. Then whenever the political winds shift, the abstract can be given a new name and meaning.

Might be a good idea to save the superseded plaques just in case.

Should have been left alone

Well I was told they weren't going to remove statues from cemeteries and now they are. They also said that they won't ever touch statues on Battlefields. I'am waiting for the first hints of the Great Purge to begin.

There's no way to please everyone. It's a dilemma; the iconography does seem to glorify the Southern War effort rather than mourn the loss of wasted lives, but the statue was, with the admission of CSA war dead into Arlington, meant to demonstrate reconciliation between North and South. We'd all be better off if we could stay focused on reconciliation rather than retribution / reparation / redress for actions beyond living memeory.

BillyNM +1

You guys are free to feel any way you like but the law removing this and other Confederate symbols/Monuments, The Naming Commission, was a bill that not only passed with overwhelming bipartisan majorities but overrode the president's veto with overwhelming bipartisan majorities.

So majority should rule in all cases? If the majority wants it, that is the final say? Just verifying the consistency of what you are saying.

True?

So majority should rule in all cases?

It is worse than that 35th. It is a majority at one time and place that rules in this case. There was some utility in moving statues out of civic places like court houses and city halls etc. as their placement could have undesired political utility. But taking Confederate monuments out of a cemetery dedicated to American soldiers seems petty and small minded to me. It certainly goes against the spirit of reconciliation that was at the core of Lincoln's thought at the end of his life. But then of course, the same people who are pushing to remove Confederate statues are often the same people attempting to cancel Lincoln.

The Confederate dead will go next. How can we have such traitorous people buried in a National Cemetary meant to honor our glorious dead? This might not have been such an issue if the family of the artist did not side with the removal of the statue. It's rather sad that they cannot let the dead rest.

So majority should rule in all cases? If the majority wants it, that is the final say?

That's a good question. Depends on what we are talking about. Yes, unless it violates a Constitutional principle?

I didnt point out the vast bipartisan majorities on this Bill or the fact they overrode the president to assert majority rules, I brought it up to dispel someone's insinuation that this was some sort of pandering to the "mob".

Maybe you could check out the history of the bill?

And it'll teach the rest of you to lobby your representatives.

Just verifying the consistency of what you are saying.

Hunh? What's that supposed to mean?

Please go ahead, the idea of you verifying anything has my undivided attention.

Marcus Brutus: But then of course, the same people who are pushing to remove Confederate statues are often the same people attempting to cancel Lincoln.

The same people happen to be just about all of Congress. And they wont be attempting to cancel Lincoln.

Here's a place to start reading about the bill:

link

Im not saying you have to like it. Frankly, I have my issues with it. But dont turn it into some sort of woke detonation.

So can assume by your own words these statues should stay, since the majority spoke.

Subject: County Named For Andrew Jackson To Remove Monuments To Former President

So the majority wanted the statues to remain. But the virtue signaling few, forced their views and opinions upon the majority, for the betterment of all I am sure.  

"At the ballot initiative, voters in the county voted to keep the statues, with over 72% of county residents voting against a proposal to remove the statues of Jackson, who was president from 1829-1837. "

link

Subject: County Named For Andrew Jackson To Remove Monuments To Former President – Vancouver Times


link

So can assume by your own words these statues should stay, since the majority spoke.

Yes, you should call the Jackson County Board and tell them that Au Pas De Charge says they should leave the statues of President Jackson in place.

I am rarely for statue removal. Some of them are magnificent works of art. And, as you have pointed out, sometimes the reasons for accusing a statue's subject of racism is forced. Having said that, this was a well studied, overwhelming majority of our government that wanted these statues/monuments removed.

Whatchya gonna do?

Glad you are for the Jackson statues staying. As you know, I disagree with any statue removals, even ones I disagree with (and yes they do exist).

The same people happen to be just about all of Congress. And they wont be attempting to cancel Lincoln.

I believe Congress in 1942 overwhelmingly supported the interment of Japanese Americans. Historically speaking, this was a huge mistake and a complete betrayal of basic justice let alone constitutional principles. What we are witnessing today is a general trend towards historical ignorance and tendency to judge and scapegoat past generations by current sensibilities. This is quite troubling to me. And I do believe Congress was gutless and pandered to the loudest voices in establishing the naming commission. The mob sentiment won out as it did in 1942.

I think you must have meant 'internment'. Interment would certainly have been a gross injustice!

Similarly, 'enemy aliens' – Germans – were interned in the UK, even though many of them had been refugees from Nazism and posed no threat to national security.

In the context of the situation at the time, such policies are understandable, albeit unjust to individuals and contrary to the principles of justice in which we believe today.

I believe Congress in 1942 overwhelmingly supported the interment of Japanese Americans. Historically speaking, this was a huge mistake and a complete betrayal of basic justice let alone constitutional principles.

This was an executive order. It wasnt a decision to be proud of but that was an emergency and time of great national anxiety in the wake of thousands killed in an attack meant to cripple the nation. Are you suggesting that a two year commission to remove confederate monuments is the same as imprisoning living people?

I said that the majority ruled unless it violated a constitutional principle.

Incidentally, there were a lot of exceptions, exclusions and non enforcement of that order. Still, I dont know what this has to do with a two year study and series of recommendations about confederate monuments and their potential reasons for removal.

What we are witnessing today is a general trend towards historical ignorance

I dont think this is the case. You dont like it because you dont think the Confederacy did anything wrong but they did unilaterally "dissolve" the union and there is an argument that monuments to them dont belong on US property. Thus, Im not sure where you get the "ignorance" part from.

and tendency to judge and scapegoat past generations by current sensibilities.

That might be your opinion. It might also be an opinion generated by certain media as a talking point for those angry about change who want to pretend they don't stand for unpopular beliefs. However, there is no reason why we cant judge other periods by our own standards.

This is quite troubling to me. And I do believe Congress was gutless and pandered to the loudest voices in establishing the naming commission. The mob sentiment won out as it did in 1942.

Fascinating. You think the act of making Asians prisoners is the same as the act of removing monuments to a "nation" that wanted to preserve slavery?

I know we've had our differences over your misunderstanding the Constitution before but just so you understand, living persons have due process, statues and fort names do not.

Congress overwhelmingly supported Roosevelt's Executive Order 9066 and gave it legal force through Public Law 503. The internment of Japanese Americans was a multi-prong collaboration between the Executive, Legislative and Judicial branches of the American government against legal American citizens and landed immigrants.

Mob mentality caused a distinct harm against a class of American citizens back in 1942 and it is doing so again. The fact that Americans in the Arlington case are dead makes it even more egregious in my view. The easiest group of people to scapegoat are dead people. I think it is incumbent upon those of us who are alive to show great care in removing artifacts of remembrance for those who have gone before us.

As far as judging the past by our own current standards the underlying perspective then becomes a kind of hubris that presumes we would have behaved differently than our forebears. Otherwise, on what other basis could be judge
them?

I agree with you that in the case of the Japanese American internment, as unfortunate as it was, the underlying historical panic that gave rise to it is completely understandable. I am just cautioning you that we should be very careful in trumpeting majority rule in any particular moment. Majorities often get it wrong.

"The Confederate dead will go next. "

No, it will be all headstones representing a cross (because it might offend the sensibilities of vampires, or others…)

"Then based on this thought process shouldn't all the confederate dead be dug up and moved to a confederate cemetery?"

Since Arlington is on R.E.Lee's land, he could just as easily demand that all the buried Unionists be removed… ;-)

(I'm being facetious, but, we do live in weird times…)

I know you are joking Zephyr1, but not everyone may be aware of the facts. Arlington was owned by Lee's father in law, George Washington Parke Custis. Upon his father in law's death the Arlington estate passed to Lee's wife for her life with the remainder passing to Lee's eldest son G.W.C. Lee upon her death. Lee never, even in his capacity as executor, had any title to the Arlington estate's real property.

The U.S. Government did not seize the property because Lee was in rebellion against the government. Rather the U.S. Government purchased the property in a tax sale that was subsequently ruled illegal. The ruling that the tax sale was illegal put the U.S. Government in a very awkward position. Arlington included not only the cemetery but also an Army post and a Freedman's village. Fortunately Lee's son was willing to sell. I have not seen the deed from G.W.C. Lee to the U.S. so don't know what condition if any was made regarding Confederates buried there. If Lee had not been willing to sell the removal of the bodies would have been a distinct possibility.

Drove past a monument to Jefferson Davis yesterday. (on I-24 in KY or TN). The stars and bars were flying over it. apparently not everyone is cowed by the shouting class.

Congress overwhelmingly supported Roosevelt's Executive Order 9066 and gave it legal force through Public Law 503. The internment of Japanese Americans was a multi-prong collaboration between the Executive, Legislative and Judicial branches of the American government against legal American citizens and landed immigrants.

It was complex but I dont see what this has to do with removing the monuments, except that you're suggesting that majorities can harm minorities. This is true as are so many other issues with that set of laws and yet, it still doesnt prove that the Naming Commission was formed from the same sort of hysteria. Unless what you are saying is that any time the majority makes a decision, it will disadvantage some minority?

Mob mentality caused a distinct harm against a class of American citizens back in 1942 and it is doing so again. The fact that Americans in the Arlington case are dead makes it even more egregious in my view. The easiest group of people to scapegoat are dead people. I think it is incumbent upon those of us who are alive to show great care in removing artifacts of remembrance for those who have gone before us.

Mob mentality? Is that similar to the mentality that caused the slave states to secede in the first place?

I take it that Great Care as a standard means really that they should not remove this monument at all? Perhaps there is overreach to this but this is what happens in the USA, we have action/reaction. Very few National Movements have been rationally thought out.

Are the Confederate dead "Americans" in the citizens rights sense of the word?

As far as judging the past by our own current standards the underlying perspective then becomes a kind of hubris that presumes we would have behaved differently than our forebears. Otherwise, on what other basis could be judge
them?

An argument that is neither more or less valid than any other approach. Can we assume that they themselves didn't judge their forbears and didn't feel free to act differently from them? I think you'll find that "tradition" is conveniently relative. We can judge them on the basis that we don't want their memorials on government land.

Let's say that, in 1964, Birmingham's city council had erected a statue of a policeman in mirror sunglasses with a dog lunging at a black man to commemorate the civil rights marches. Would the removal of that statue be wrong because the people back then could claim they didn't know any better or, alternatively, why should they be judged by today's standards?

What if the same policeman, dog and civil rights marcher statue had instead been erected on government property in 1995? Would that make the relationship between the times and the statue's purpose different?

Finally, does it matter who erected the statue and why? If it were sponsored by the KKK (or some white supremacy group) would that change the message of the same statue erected by supporters of the civil rights marches?

I suppose the question we need to ask ourselves is what are the powers behind symbolism and speech? Do symbols carry messages? Does the same symbol carry the same message to all observers?

Further, if when symbols are erected and displayed, if a group cant voice its objections, did those voices never exist? Is that also an example of the majority treading all over the minority?

I am struggling to apply your principle Au Pas de Charge to various historical events. For instance, the Taliban, in 2001, destroyed two beautiful statues of Buddha created in the 6th century. They did so because the statues didn't conform with their modern, majority sensibilities. What is the difference between the removal of the statue at Arlington and the "removal" of the 2 Buddhist statues by the Taliban? I can't see by your logic how we could support the one and decry the other.

Unless what you are saying is that any time the majority makes a decision, it will disadvantage some minority?

What I am saying is that without a basic respect for the past and some humility in recognizing the contingency of any position at any time a momentary majority is capable of doing great harm not only to the living minority but to those who have died and now have no voice at all.

You know it's funny I've been to Germany on many occasions, I have never seen any statue or monumement commemorating any political or military leader covering the period 1933-1945. I have no idea what happened during that 12 year period. None. Because nothing records it.

Oh, wait, we get our history from things other than monuments.

Maybe you should follow the example of the Germans and errect monuments commemorating the victims of an evil regime, not the perpetrators.

I am struggling to apply your principle Au Pas de Charge to various historical events. For instance, the Taliban, in 2001, destroyed two beautiful statues of Buddha created in the 6th century. They did so because the statues didn't conform with their modern, majority sensibilities.

I should stop you there, comparing the US Government and its military carefully reviewing lawful removals on public property to ignorant, intolerant, extremist bigots is irresponsible. Please read the Naming Commission's report.

What is the difference between the removal of the statue at Arlington and the "removal" of the 2 Buddhist statues by the Taliban? I can't see by your logic how we could support the one and decry the other.

That's because, i think, you haven't read the Naming Commission's thoughtful methodology whereas the methodology of the Taliban is vandalism.

Are you worried about disturbing the dead or removing symbols to them? You've avoided discussing the meaning and importance of symbols, if why they are established is as important as what they mean to the viewer and whether everyone should agree to their initial display.

What I am saying is that without a basic respect for the past and some humility in recognizing the contingency of any position at any time a momentary majority is capable of doing great harm not only to the living minority but to those who have died and now have no voice at all.

Youre making assumptions that past decisions/results you find justified were handled responsibly and that present day ones are a matter of whim. I dont know that the historical record supports this.

This could be discussed at length. But, where, or rather at what time, do/did they mostly worry about the living minority and the dead? What nations, societies etc are we talking about?

On the one hand I firmly believe in Jefferson's principal that no generation has the right to bind future generations. That applies to monuments as much as to anything else. On the other I believe turnabout is fair play. If we do it to them we cannot complain when they do it to us. Knowing that majorities can change is it really wise to create a precedent that your opponents can use to justify removing monuments to your heroes.

Removing statues based on political views you don't like is intolerant, regardless of what those views are.

On the one hand I firmly believe in Jefferson's principal that no generation has the right to bind future generations. That applies to monuments as much as to anything else. On the other I believe turnabout is fair play. If we do it to them we cannot complain when they do it to us. Knowing that majorities can change is it really wise to create a precedent that your opponents can use to justify removing monuments to your heroes.

Impeccably put, Bill N. Unassailable for any honest intellect. Unfortunately, there are some here who miss the truth (and risk) to be found in that old aphorism – "What goes around, comes around."

B

cavcrazy wrote -

It should be left right where it is.

You just don't understand. To do so would smack of some sort of toleration or reconciliation.

We can't that now, can we?

B

Removing statues based on political views you don't like is intolerant, regardless of what those views are.

And the Confederate view was, the dissolution of the Union.
By your logic, a Statue that calls for "Death to USA" has to stay on government property because no viewpoint can be disapproved of?

You just don't understand. To do so would smack of some sort of toleration or reconciliation.

We can't that now, can we?

B

Interestingly, until around 1900,the Confederate dead buried there were accidental and their presence there was opposed by USA veterans. Eventually, they allowed them to be buried there but denied USCTs the right to be buried there. Interesting but not surprising.

link

Although I have heard this urban legend from time to time, why Northern veterans would be OK with CSA veterans is anyone's guess. There were hard feelings for almost two generations and it took the Spanish American War and a need for national solidarity to pay lip service to the Lost Cause. It doesn't look like there was any real attempts at tolerance or reconciliation, just pandering.

The monument was sculpted by a CSA veteran who was in thrall to the Lost Cause. Not exactly an objective artist.

The United Confederate Veterans (UCV) identified Confederate graves around the Washington, D.C. area and successfully petitioned the government to have those remains transferred to Arlington," the web site article notes. "On June 6, 1900, Congress appropriated $2,500 USD for the removal and reinterment of Confederate remains." Founded in 1889 as an organization for Confederate veterans, the UCV was Dixie's counterpart to the Grand Army of the Republic.

Hardly sounds like a national movement, more like a very special interest.

link

There is a law suit trying to put a stop to its removal; who knows, it might succeed in restoring truth, justice and the Confederate way.

link

This is disturbing:
link

That statue does not call for the dissolution of the union.
At some point in history a US government official approved that statue for installation, so removing it is calling the judgement of that official into question.
I seriously doubt a statue that says "Death to USA" would get approved for installation, but in this day and age it is possible.
And regardless, demanding the removal of a statue because you don't like its content is intolerant.

Forgive me, a mere 'Limey', if I am mistaken, but did the Confederacy actually call for the Union to be dissolved? Was it not the case that those states which seceded and formed the Confederacy wished to leave the Union, but had no desire to prevent those who chose to remain in the Union continuing to do so? Rather like the UK leaving the European Union, in so far as there was no British intent to dissolve the EU completely, just to leave it. Or like Eire leaving the United Kingdom – the latter was not dissolved, just its membership was reduced.

Arthur, maybe more like Devon getting Cornwall, Somerset, etc. to join them in forming a new country, iMO.

Maybe there should be a Statue Wars board here. A parallel, grand scale world to miniatures getting moved around.

That statue does not call for the dissolution of the union.

The Confederacy was the Dissolution of the Union and The Confederates called for as much. If the statue celebrates the Confederacy, well, what can that tell you?

At some point in history a US government official approved that statue for installation, so removing it is calling the judgement of that official into question.

Yes, and what's the problem with this? Besides the fact that it is a vague, sweeping statement, sometimes you review decisions. I think in this case, the official wont complain too much.

I seriously doubt a statue that says "Death to USA" would get approved for installation, but in this day and age it is possible.

But I only asked "What if".

And regardless, demanding the removal of a statue because you don't like its content is intolerant.

OK, so you would leave a "Death To USA" Statue up on public ground.

IIRC the statue was about reconciliation not about celebrating the Confederacy.
And if a US official approved a statue that said Death to USA on public ground I certainly would not remove it, I just wouldn't go see it. That is an option here too, isn't it?

Not if you are going to visit an ancestor, but I already understand the history of the Lost Cause narrative and am no longer offended by its early trappings. So I would leave the statue, but with a sign pointing out that some of its characteristics have concerned some people and why.

If there is an element of a reconciliation opportunity here, we could just try embracing it today

IIRC the statue was about reconciliation not about celebrating the Confederacy.

I dont know every reason the memorial was erected but it looks like there was some indulgence to the UDC; a very, "special interest" group. It appears that the UDC pushed a strong "Lost Cause" narrative and purposefully selected a former Confederate soldier to sculpt something which doesnt mention slavery and casts the Confederacy as a noble cause.

The Naming commission said:

Thirty-two life-sized figures depict mythical gods alongside
Southern soldiers and civilians. Two of these figures are portrayed
as African-American: an enslaved woman depicted as a "Mammy,"
holding the infant child of a white officer, and an enslaved man
following his owner to war. An inscription of the Latin phrase
"Victrix causa diis placuit sed victa Caton" – which means, "The
victorious cause was pleasing to the gods, but the lost cause to Cato"
– construes the South's secession as a noble "Lost Cause." This
narrative of the Lost Cause, which romanticized the pre-Civil

War South and denied the horrors of slavery, fueled white backlash against Reconstruction and the rights that the 13th,
14th and 15th Amendments (1865-1870) had granted
to African-Americans.

Thus, it's a bit tough to not see the memorial as praise for the Confederacy.

I have a hard time believing reconciliation was a broad, national sentiment. Even it it was, the reconciliation has been achieved. There is no further need to keep reconciling with the Confederates, is there?

And if a US official approved a statue that said Death to USA on public ground I certainly would not remove it, I just wouldn't go see it. That is an option here too, isn't it?

I guess, have you been to the Arlington Confederate Monument?

I havent and I didnt know Confederate dead are buried there. Frankly, I think the Naming Commission has been far too lenient here. I dont know that the park is supposed to house anyone but American heroes. Im actually a little peeved that Confederates are there, especially since there seems to be way too many Confederate fans still wandering around.

When I read untethered statements like this one:

I think I said this was going to happen in an earlier round of the new game show: "Let's Remove Those statues!". Yes, they will demand the Confederate dead be removed next.

"Doin' Right Ain't Got No End"

Almost as if the Confederates should be national heroes and it's un-American to remove them.

When I see unbelievably self assured arrogance for men who died without reconciling themselves, I ask, why should we extend them any courtesies?

Adios Confederales:

link

Some Congressmen wrote a letter to protest the removal.

link

I guess those out there waiting for the monument to come down, will have to hold off self gratification for another day.

Subject: Judge's order keeps Confederate memorial at Arlington Cemetery – NBC4 Washington


link

I'm sure there will be some pro Hamas/Palestinian Marches to occupy them in the meantime, or maybe some Jewish soldiers graves to deface.

I guess those out there waiting for the monument to come down, will have to hold off self gratification for another day. Subject: Judge's order keeps Confederate memorial at Arlington Cemetery – NBC4 Washington

Something of a Hail Mary. Apparently, they believe they can prove the buried will be disturbed by the removal. Odd, if only because the only things being removed are the metal work with the stone plinth left intact. But, it's a Trump appointed Judge, so who knows.

Vios con dios rebels!

link

Some of the defenses asserted by Defend Arlington are amusing and flimsy.

All in all a bad day for insurrectionists everywhere.

So one down, on to the next…. Right? 🤔
You think they moved there right after the latest judge's ruling? "On from Arlington and on to the Lincoln Memorial!".

"From the River to the Sea! Every monument must be demeaned!" "Hey Hey! Ho Ho! Every monument has got to go!"

Subject: Lincoln Memorial steps vandalized with ‘Free Gaza' graffiti, red paint – YouTube

YouTube link

i dont think the threat to history comes from the removal of statues that were made well after the civil war and in some cases to edit history itself, the threat comes from the banning of books on the history of slavery and banning even the discussion of it in school – that is quite harmful to the ability of students to develop critical skills in understanding and engaging with society. There apparently recently also i heard in the news a case where someone complained about a slaveowner mansion that is open to the public to visit selling books there about the history of slavery and so the books have been removed. I would think that of all places where historical books on the subject would fit would be at such a place – it would be like the holocaust museum removing any literature about the holocaust in their gift shop (i assume they have a gift shop, or maybe they dont, because the idea of a gift shop at a holcaust museum sounds a bit tasteless – maybe its called something else) – perhaps a better example, the Musee de l'Armee in Paris removing all books on napoleon

Nevertheless i think such status could still be viewable and some like the cemetery monument by Moses Ezekiel is in itself quite well done – – what should be ensured though that the education around the history of the civil war and slavery remain important subjects as well as subjects such as critical literacy, in which case then many different aspects of the monuments and the history in which the monuments themselves were created can be understood.

So although i am not worried that history is affected by the removal of statues and really it comes down to what those who experience it may agree on, i think rather working to raise the awareness and understanding of people as to the history is more important and in that context the statues could still have a relevant role – a more whole, constructive approach that involves communication at local, state and federal levels