The Civil War ended in 1861, approximately 156 years ago. Despite this, the war is still one of the most discussed and controversial subjects of modern American politics. Everything from the morals behind the wars conception to the emblems and relics that the war produced are meticulously analyzed by news stations and online social media outlets. The most chewed over topic is the confederate statues, and how ethical it is for them to be displayed in the public of the country they fought against. Each side of the debate is very passionate about their claims: one side sees the preservation of these monuments of the confederacy as an insulting and degrading idolization of the men who killed US soldiers to preserve slavery, while the other side sees the confederacy as a vital pillar of their culture that should not be desecrated simply because some people are offended. While both sides have an argument, there are some possible compromises that will see the history and culture of the confederacy reserved while also keeping it from being displayed all throughout the United States. While simply destroying the statues can be seen as too radical, the relocation of the confederate statues to museums will effectively preserve the culture of the confederacy, while removing the statues, namely the more offensive ones such as the Nathan Bedford Forrest Statue in Nashville, out of the public, where there is no business for these relics to be displayed.
Before defending or attacking the confederate statues, it is important to understand the statistics and history of them. According to the Southern Poverty Law Center, there are approximately 1503 confederate memorials dotted across the United States, including northern states, with around 720 of these memorials being statues and monuments. Despite these statues being around for several decades, and some displaying heinous acts against Africa-Americans and the Reconstruction government, public outcry against them was not really prominent until 2015, when Dylann Roof massacred 9 people in a Charleston, South Carolina church. His intention was to start a “race war,” and all 9 people that he shot and killed were African American. After the news went nationwide, pictures surfaced of Roof posing with confederate flags and symbols. Although Roof failed in inciting a race war, he managed to spark a movement against the statues that enshrine confederate heroes, and their display outside government buildings and around the United States public would forever be questioned.
The debate started from there; white southerners viewing the memorials as emblems of their heritage were quickly provoked by the anti-confederacy protestors who called for the removal of all statues and flags. After the Roof massacre, many southern officials were swift in removing the memorials. Mayor Mitch Landrieu of New Orleans quickly decided that the confederate memorial statues must be taken down, and since his proposal, four of them have been removed from the public over the years. Landrieu called the supporters of the statues a “Cult of the Lost Cause,” and went through many court cases and protests before taking the statues down. This is just one example of how many different counties in the United States are handling the confederate memorial debate, and I believe that Landrieu has approached the controversial topic correctly. Although this success, many other places will have a hard time taking down the statues because of the pro-statues support of the historical statues; support that might be misinformed.
The most significant argument those in favor of the confederate statues use is that removing the statues would be removing history, but many of the statues that are displayed in public right now are not as historical as they believe. Although many monuments were erected in the early years following the Civil War, most of them were put up decades later, specifically during times when segregation and civil rights were prominent topics. In 1900-1920 saw the largest spike of monuments being put up, and this is coincidentally the same timespan that saw Woodrow Wilson initiate workplace segregation under the Jim Crow laws. 1909 was the year the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People was founded, and also the year that saw largest spike of confederate statues and monuments recorded in United States history. Likewise, the 1950-1960’s also saw a spike in confederate monument creations, which of course is the years that the civil rights movement was taking place. It is hard to argue that these statues are historical when some are only around fifty years old, and even more hard to argue when you realize that many were put up solely to combat the advancement of African American legal rights. This goes to show that a majority of confederate monuments have dark and heinous origins, and their removal will not negatively affect the history of America.
One statue in particular that embodies the egregious motives behind establishing these monuments is the Nathan Bedford Forrest statue in Nashville, Tennessee. Nathan Bedford Forrest was a plantation owner turned confederate army general during the Civil War, and afterwards a Ku Klux Klan leader. The statue itself is almost comical looking, as it features Forrest yelling while mounted on a horse, sword in one hand and a pistol in his other hand, which is pointed behind him. It is surrounded behind confederate flags and displayed alongside Interstate 65. The statue has been the target of several debates and vandalism; it has even been shot at by protestors on occasion. This statue’s situation is particularly complex because it is displayed on private land owned by a lawyer named Bill Dorris, who has no plans of removing the statue despite public outcry. The Metro Council attempted to get permission to plant landscape to block the view of the statue, but was turned down. Despite the amalgamation of civilian vandalism, government intervention, and public outcry, Bill Dorris believes that “slavery was never an issue. Nathan Bedford Forrest was not a racist.”
I believe the situation with the Nathan Bedford Forrest statue displays the ignorance, stubbornness, and overall lack of respect that many confederate statue supporters exhibit. Bill Dorris refuses to believe that Forrest was racist, despite joining and leading the Ku Klux Klan, and himself has called the opposition to confederate monuments “cane blacks.” The statue serves no historical function; it is gated off and locked away with padlock, so no one can approach it. It also was erected in 1998, so its removal would not “erase history,” as many would argue. The Nathan Bedford Forrest statue of Nashville, Tennessee is just one of hundreds of examples of pointless glorifications of racist confederates, and its display in public is not to inform and teach people, but to insult them.
These statues are degrading to the citizens of the United States and do not belong in the public, but that does not necessarily mean they have to be destroyed. I believe the best solution, one that can benefit both sides of the argument, is to take all the statues and put them into museums. Whenever a statues removal comes to a debate, there is always a commission who makes it clear that they will take the statue off the hands of the public and put it somewhere where it can be properly viewed. For example, The Nathan Bedford Forrest statue in Nashville, should Bill Dorris ever secede and relieve himself of it, would go to the Tennessee Historical Commission, whose goal is to preserve Tennessee historical relics in a way that they can be properly analyzed. One proposed plan highlighted in the Huffington Post was to create one large museum that could house most, if not all, of the confederate statues. This would likely be a popular tourist attraction, as everyone could come to view the statues and learn about them as they please, and if you do not want to see the statues because of the offensive figures they portray, you can avoid them by simply never going to the museum.
The museum could even recall recent history that led to its origins. The statues represent the history of confederate leaders, but they themselves have a history of vandalism, protests, and eventual removal. This all could be remembered in the museum as well, including events such as the Black Lives Matter protests in South Carolina against the confederate Flag, and the Charleston, Virginia rallies that featured neo-Nazis, confederate sympathizers, and Ku Klux Klan members. Along with allowing the people to learn about the Civil War through the statues, they can also learn of the aftermath that has been haunting America since the end of the war.
Despite the positives results that would come out of the museum proposal, there are also several possible drawbacks. Of course, a museum to house over 700 25 feet plus statues would not only require a huge amount of space, but also a large amount of money to create. Also, a building that houses all the relics that are so precious to white supremacists and Klan members could be a hub for racist gatherings and displays. The white supremacist’s rallies in Charleston, Virginia proved that many Americans are still staunchly willing to protests for their confederate views, and the proposed museum would likely be a hot spot for rallies and protests alike. However, this is all speculation, and it is likely that the museum would be a center for learning instead of hate. And given that there is even a chance that a museum would solve the controversy that America currently faces with the confederate memorials, I believe it would be a wise decision.
Although I believe that the museum plan is the best way to resolve this issue, I also think more drastic measures, such as destroying the statues, would be better than keeping them in public. At their core, these statues are not meant to present the history of the men depicted, but to glorify their actions of fighting the keep slavery in the south. Destroying the statues would not erase history, as statues simply are not how we keep track of history. We have a vast number of books, essays, museums, and historical documents that are all specifically aimed at educating people on the causes and aims of the Civil War. I believe the best piece reasoning to destroy the statues comes from an 1869 Robert E. Lee quote, “I think it wiser…not to keep open the sores of war but to follow the examples of those nations who endeavored to obliterate the marks of civil strife, to commit to oblivion the feelings engendered.” To put it simply, these statues glorify racist slave-owners who killed American Soldiers in an attempt to preserve the institution of slavery, and if the most important general of the confederate army believes that the statues are unnecessary, I do not see why the confederate supporters still argue for them.
The Civil War was a bloody war that was fought to preserve the institution of slavery, and it is immoral to preserve the glorification of those men who fought for this egregious act. While there are citizens in America who say that their ancestors fought for the confederacy, and they want their family history idolized, there is also citizens whose ancestors were enslaved by those confederate soldiers. It is vital that we as Americans never forget the history of the civil war to make sure that we never repeat the same atrocities, but it is just as vital to respect all Americans by accepting the confederate soldiers for what they were: Slave owning traitors who should not be commemorated in the country that they rebelled against.