Writing

Mordechai Sionit

Prof. Henry

ENGL-1301-81401

1 December 2017

The Monumental Question

One of the most fiercely debated topics in the news and media over the last several

months is the removal of Confederate monuments and statues from public display. Recently, this

issue has come under the spotlight as many cities across the United States have decided to

remove their statues. The debate can basically be divided into two camps: those in support of the

removal of the statues, on the basis that the statues were erected to pledge allegiance to the

defeated Confederacy and that their presence only increases racial tensions, and those opposed to

the removal, who claim that these monuments represent a part of history that must be preserved,

and that taking them down will not solve the deeper issues of racial tensions today and will in

fact only make them worse. Both sides certainly do make a point. However, after researching the

issue and giving the matter some thought, it seems pretty clear that while the first group

definitely has a valid argument, their demanded results do not necessarily have to be (and

therefore should not be) implemented. States and cities that currently have Confederate statues

and/or monuments should not remove them from public display, because doing so would be

trying to hide an integral part of American history. Rather, they should look to other methods

such as contextualizing the monuments so that it is clear that there is no so-called loyalty to the

Confederacy and so there is less means to cause aggravation among the African-American

community and others who take issue with the monuments.

Sionit 2

The first reason why Southern states and cities should not remove their Confederate

monuments is simply because many Confederate soldiers were actually upstanding, noble people

who fought a war because they had to, and not because they personally wanted to defend the

institution of slavery. This does not mean to say that slavery wasn’t the main issue that caused

the war. Such a theory was heavily acknowledged by Southerners in the late 19th century-early

20th century, and is infamously referred to as the “Lost Cause.” However, this ideology has been

rejected by all historians and is today known only because the Lost Cause era “gave political

cover for the worst and most violent period of segregation” (Gilbert 38). Nevertheless, on an

individual basis, there were many officers in the Confederate Army that were not necessarily

fighting to defend the enslavement of African-Americans, and yet were immensely successful

military leaders whose contributions to military history should be remembered.

Perhaps the greatest of example of an individual of this sort is also ironically the figure

whose monuments are at the forefront of the issue: Confederate General Robert E. Lee. In the

article titled “Robert E. Lee: Answering His Critics,” Steve Byas provides a few biographical

sketches of General Lee. Among other things, he mentions repeatedly that Lee was personally

opposed to the institution of slavery, and although he did inherit slaves from his father-in-law, he

treated them decently and released them immediately after the Emancipation Proclamation went

into effect (as did Union General Ulysses S. Grant, for the record). In fact, Lee himself wrote in a

letter to his wife on December 27, 1856 that “in this enlightened age, there are few who will not

acknowledge that slavery as an institution is a moral and political evil” (qtd. in Byas 35). At the

same time, Lee was a spectacular military leader whose strategic skills allowed him to lead many

successful defeats of the Union Army. In fact, Lee’s strategies have been studied at West Point

and US forces used a version of his battle plans from the infamously successful Battle of

Sionit 3

Chancellorsville during the First Persian Gulf War to defeat the Iraqi army (Byas 33). These

facts all indicate quite clearly that if nothing else, Lee was a spectacular military leader who

made serious contributions to the world of military history. However, it is also known that Gen.

Lee was an exceptionally devout Christian and as such an exceedingly kind and noble person

who never drank, smoked or used profanity. On one occasion, after a Union veteran who had

wounded his leg tried to disgrace the Confederacy after the war, Lee humbly dismounted his

horse and wished the soldier well (Byas 36). When you add these two aspects of Gen. Lee’s life,

it appears that he was in reality not only an influential military leader, but also a distinguished

man of faith and character.

We can now refer back to the issue of removing Confederate statues on the basis that

their presence in public display promotes racist and pro-slavery sentiments that run counter to

what is today considered morally acceptable. After you look at the facts about who these

individuals really where, it becomes strikingly clear that they must be remembered for their

tremendous contributions to American History. Firstly, we find that even generals such as Robert

E. Lee who commanded an army on behalf of the Confederacy that seceded from the Union

because the Union was not enforcing the Fugitive Slave Act (Gilbert 38) were not necessarily

pro-slavery. Additionally, it is very hard to argue with the facts that Lee and his Confederate

forces exercised extremely successful strategies against the North. Erecting a monument in

commemoration of figures such as Gen. Lee makes perfect sense: we want to preserve the

history of great American military leaders and men of great faith and nobility. Removing statues

of Confederate generals such as Lee seems to say that these are individuals whom we don’t want

to remember – even though the contrary is true.

Sionit 4

Some may argue that the entire erection of Confederate monuments and statues was

preposterous from the outset. After all, the South did lose the war when Lee surrendered to Grant

at Appomattox – and since when do losing officers get their monuments erected for public

display?! Those who feel this way point the original placement of these statues back to the Lost

Cause era, the post-war period in which many Southerners attempted to claim that they had

actually achieved victory – in an ethical sense – in order to save face. Because the construction

of these monuments stems from this flawed revisionist mindset, it only makes sense to take these

statues down. The term “Lost Cause” was coined in 1866 by Southern historian Edward A.

Pollard who authored a book under that title, in which he attempted to construe the real reason

behind the war as being the North’s jealousy of the South’s landed gentry society, and this

philosophy gave birth to movement known as the Lost Cause (Wayne). Most Confederate

monuments were set up in the late 19th century-early 20th century by this movement to glorify the

former Confederacy (Gilbert 38). “Monuments served not only to freeze that sentiment but to

establish Southern white supremacy as a distinct cultural force destined to rise again”

(McDaniel). Hence, because these statues were put up for the sole purpose of restoring

Confederate values, they should most certainly be removed from public display in today’s

society, where the Confederacy is a thing of the past. Some may even go as far as to say that

“reassessing the placement of Confederate monuments has nothing to do with changing history

and everything to do with making sure we're on the right side of it” (McDaniel).

It is certainly true that many if not most Confederate monuments were erected with the

initial intention of promoting Southern ideals. However, this does not necessarily mean that

therefore the statues should be taken down. While modern historians will all agree that the Lost

Cause was a fabrication, this does not mean that it wasn’t a part of our history. No matter how

Sionit 5

you slice it, it is a fact that the overwhelming sentiment in the post-war South was that of the

Lost Cause. While no one is saying that they were right, it is still necessary to preserve this time

in American History for future generations to learn about. We see no problem in teaching our

children about the Ancient Incas of Peru, who worshipped the sun and offered human sacrifices,

even though it is fair to say every single sane American citizen living in today’s society will

admit that both of these things are absurd and inhumane. So too, we should teach our children

about the unfortunate reality that was the Lost Cause: when thousands of Americans deluded

themselves into believing they had achieved victory in the face of defeat. When you factor in a

compromise such as plaques that put the monuments in their proper context, it is very hard to

hear why these statutes should still be removed. The Lost Cause era “is part of our collective

history, but one that we need to acknowledge for both its propaganda and cruelty” (Gilbert 39).

Dealing with it honestly allows us to reflect on the history of racism in general, especially today,

when countless hate groups use Confederate symbols to promote their causes. Therefore, it

seems that leaving the monuments in place while also contextualizing them is simply a better

option than removing them, because by leaving them in public display we do not forget the

injustices that were committed in our country’s past.

In his article titled “Confederate monuments reopen old racial wounds,” Rick Hampson

cites the example of a particular Confederate memorial fountain in Montana that was erected by

the United Daughters of the Confederacy – a group that definitely promoted Lost Cause ideals.

However, he also describes that 1) the initial erection of the fountain aroused no opposition, and

2) the sculptor of the fountain was the child of a Union soldier. Thus, Hampson remarks that the

fountain not only helped to beautify the park it was placed in, but it was also an act of national

unity. He closes his article by describing how after some city officials were worried about how

Sionit 6

the memorial might affect the city’s reputation, the issue was resolved by placing a sign that

properly described the significance of the fountain and how it came to be. Once again, it seems

quite clear that the issue is better resolved by contextualizing the monuments rather than

removing them. While the initial intention for their placement may have been wrong, this does

not mean that we today must take them down. Rather, we can preserve the important history

behind the monuments and their erection while also making it clear that the Lost Cause was a

fabrication simply by reaching a compromise.

Another reason why Southern states and cities should not remove their Confederate

statues is purely practical: taking down mega-sized statues and moving them to another location

is extremely expensive. It does not seem very compelling to say that thousands of taxpayers’

dollars should be spent on something that does not provide a single individual with any tangible

benefits. In his article, Hampson relates that on one occasion, a city’s decision to move its

Confederate memorial cost $400,000. Had the city opted to leave the memorial in its then-current

location, those $400k could have been used for arguably far more important things, such as

updating public healthcare facilities or providing meals for the homeless. While this reason does

not speak directly to the philosophical importance of preserving history, it does reinforce the

suggestion that states/cities look for alternative methods to subdue racist sentiments. Erecting a

plaque that explains the significance of the individual while also maintaining accepted moral

standards and eradicating any alleged support for the Confederacy would have been a whole lot

cheaper than $400k.

In conclusion, the arguments we have shown should lead us to rethink what has happened

in several Southern cities over the last few months. Unfortunately, many people still feel these

monuments must come down. Unless we make an effort to do something fast, we risk losing

Sionit 7

important links in the chain of our history. As stated above, the best solution that should logically

leave everyone satisfied would seem to be to contextualize the monuments by erecting signs or

plaques that properly describe how each statue came to be and what it represents. In this manner,

cities can eliminate racist sentiments while also saving thousands of dollars and preserving these

statues for future generations to learn from.

Sionit 8

Works Cited

Byas, Steve. “Robert E. Lee: Answering His Critics.” New American, vol. 33, no. 18, 18 Sept.

2017, pp. 33–38. Academic Search Complete, EBSCOhost, www.ebscohost.com.

Accessed 22 Nov. 2017.

Curtis, Wayne. “Decommissioning Lee.” The American Scholar, 15 Sept. 2017,

theamericanscholar.org/decommissioning-lee/. Accessed 22 Nov. 2017.

Gilbert, Paul. “A Monumental Decision: What to Do with Confederate Monuments?” Parks &

Recreation, vol. 52, no. 10, Oct. 2017, pp. 36–39. Academic Search Complete,

EBSCOhost, www.ebscohost.com. Accessed 22 Nov. 2017.

Hampson, Rick, et al. “Confederate Monuments Reopen Old Racial Wounds.” USA Today, 23

May, 2017, Newspaper Source, EBSCOhost, www.ebscohost.com. Accessed 22 Nov.

2017.

McDaniel, Alex. “Removing Confederate Monuments Doesn't 'Erase' History. It Fact-Checks It.”

Time.com, 18 Aug. 2017, p. 15. Academic Search Complete, EBSCOhost,

www.ebscohost.com. Accessed 22 Nov. 2017.