The charges of “racism” and “hatred” levied at countless historical figures from George Washington to Teddy Roosevelt this past month have been brought against our very own memorial to fallen soldiers of the Civil War. It needs to be defended. The “Lest We Forget” monument, like the other Civil War-era monuments that popped up across America, on both sides of the Mason-Dixon, was erected on the semi-centennial of that terrible war. They were not erected to gloat “white supremacy” or “bigotry” in the South or anything like that. The U.S. already had laws enforcing those racial hierarchies. They did not need statues to do that. Historians William C. Davis and James McPherson, along with economist Philip Leigh, have widely excoriated the myth that southern soldiers fought for nothing but “slavery.” This is by no means to say that did not play a role in secession, that would be equally false. It is to say, though, that issue was a part of a deeper constitutional issue of state self-government. The impetus behind these monuments was to promote that aspect. For example, a recently removed St. Louis statue was dedicated to those who “fought to uphold the right declared by the pen of Jefferson and achieved by the sword of Washington. . . they battled to preserve the independence of the states which was won from Great Britain, and to perpetuate the constitutional government which was established by their fathers.” They were reconciling the memory of the fallen with the cause of Robert E. Lee when he stated, “I yet believe that the maintenance of the rights and authority reserved to the states and to the people [to be] the safeguard to the continuance of a free government.” As opposed to “the consolidation of the states into one vast republic.” But our monument has far less ideological fluff. It was dedicated to fallen loved ones who were members of this community. And that’s it. In 1861, before the Battle of First Manassas, Lee charged young soldiers to be defenders of “self-government, liberty and peace” and that is exactly how those who paid for these post-war monuments remembered them. They weren’t purveyors of some “lost cause” mythology that one recent school of historians has retroactively diagnosed people in the past with. Their post-war grievances were founded in pre-war fact.
The truth of the matter is that historical figures’ perspectives on morality are far different from our own. Their value systems were entirely different. Thus, making judgments on their past morality or immorality, and then calling for the removal of statues based on that modern judgment, should not hold much weight among serious people.
Is it really too much to ask for our ancestors to be remembered and for our fathers to not be exhumed from their graves? The civilized member of society would say no. Those who are sewing the spirit of destruction, however, would say yes. Removal and destruction are not inevitable though. We can do something about it. We must show that we will not be dictated to about our monument by people whom the monument does not represent. These memorials speak for us and only us.
The point must be brought up in regards to whether or not a city commission of five has the authority to remove the property of thousands. After all, it was not the taxpayers that paid for this monument. It was the impoverished mothers, fathers, sons, and daughters of the deceased who pitched in, with often only pennies at the time, to scrape enough money together from their post-war pocketbooks to put up a memorial to the legacy of their loved ones. Thus, any group of people that do not represent those who put the monument there are acting as thieves and they should be held accountable legally and ethically. Rayne Cooks (850-973-5081), Ina Thompson (850-445-7755), Jim Catron (850-464-8201), Terry Johnson (850-253-5473), and Judy Townsend (850-973-6490) will be meeting at 5:30 on Tuesday the 14th to discuss this.
Cole Davis