[If it’s August,
it must be time for my
annual pilgrimage to my Virginia homeland with my boys—and my annual
series AmericanStudying the Old
Dominion. Leading up to a special weekend post on the people who really
signify “Virginia” to me!]
On two obvious
Confederate commemorations in Charlottesville, and one less obvious and more telling
one.
On the other
side of the University of Virginia Cemetery from the African American burial
site about which I wrote yesterday is an even more complicated historic site: a
Confederate
Monument and Cemetery. Dedicated in 1893 by the Ladies’ Confederate
Memorial Association (a predecessor of the Daughters of the Confederacy), and
featuring a statue that pays tribute to nearly 2000
Confederate soldiers who lost their lives while at Charlottesville’s
hospital, the Confederate cemetery is considered part of the
larger university cemetery and is thus maintained by staff and money from
the university. That’s a complex and in some ways unsettling reality, for a 21st
century public university to support the upkeep of a Confederate memorial—but in
truth the university, like the city and the rest of the South, was entirely
intertwined with the Confederacy during the war, and the cemetery reflects
and asks us to engage with those interconnections.
It’s far from
the only Charlottesville space that does so, of course. Surrounding the city’s
historic Downtown
Mall are three prominent Confederate commemorations: two parks dedicated to
Robert E. Lee
and Stonewall
Jackson respectively (with accompanying statues of each general on
horseback), and an overarching memorial
to the Confederacy located in front of the city’s historic courthouse. These
sites are no different from the parks, statues, and memorials in numerous other
Southern cities and towns, of course, and the point lies precisely in their
commonality: to grow up in a Southern city in the late 20th century,
as I did in Charlottesville, was to be surrounded by such commemorations of the
Confederacy, to see this attitude toward the pasts of slavery and Civil War as
a matter of accepted, shared routine. It’s only recently that we have seen
prominent, public pushback on such memorials, which in Charlottesville has
taken the form both of a City
Councilor’s proposal to remove the statues and of a graffiti
addition to the Lee statue in the aftermath of the Charleston shooting.
I don’t believe that
Confederate statues and memorials should be removed or vandalized—I understand
the impulses, and do believe that the signage on most could use some additions;
but I’m with Kevin
Levin and others who argue that it’s important for us to remember the
histories, both of the Confederacy and of the efforts to commemorate it, and
that memorials offer a particularly clear way to engage with both. Yet the
truth, of the memorials and the city and the histories, is far deeper than
statues and cemeteries, and in Charlottesville it can be linked to one Paul G. McIntire.
McIntire, a Charlottesville native (born in 1860, no less) who made a fortune on
the Stock Exchange and gave much of it back to his hometown, is known as one of
the city’s most prominent and beloved citizens. But when we look further into
McIntire’s goals, his emphasis on Confederate memorials (he donated both the
Lee and Jackson statues) becomes clearer and uglier: in donating the land for
the public green space still known as McIntire Park, McIntire stipulated
that it would be “held and used in perpetuity … for a public park and play
ground for the white people of the City of Charlottesville.” Which is to say,
Confederate memorials are never simply about heritage or history—they are
always caught up in histories of race and racism, the racist cause for which
the Confederacy fought and that far too often embodied in its commemorations.
That’s a truth as unavoidable in Charlottesville as it is everywhere.
Next Virginia
connection tomorrow,
Ben
PS. What do you
think?
The question of removal is a really complex one. I started out where you are - that at least to a degree, it's important to leave these in place as a reminder, and to not 'whitewash' (pardon the phrase) the history... yet of course we do that already, don't we? The act of memorialization itself puts forward the parts of the past we want to remember. At some point, I read someone basically ask "are we worried people will forget we had slavery if we take these down?" And I think the answer is of course not. And that's especially true if a movement can begin to replace them with people who fought the system from within and without, and those who suffered under it, more than those who perpetrated it. To a point, to be sure, but I think the South could stand to lose a few statues, you know?
ReplyDeleteJust my two cents on this.
Thanks for those great thoughts, Andrew. That makes a lot of sense to me!
ReplyDeleteBen