Long time readers of the faculty lounge may recall that one of my interests is the law of monuments -- the placement and removal of monuments (of which building names are a key part). But one of the things that really interests me is why so frequently monuments themselves talk about law. You may remember the monument at Richmond's Hollywood Cemetery that commemorates the gift of the Confederate section from the state to the cemetery. And the Pennsylvania monument at Virginia's battle of New Market has a plaque commemorating the transfer of title of the monument from the Pennsylvania to Virginia. And the statue of General Meade at Gettysburg has a plaque reciting Congress' act praising the United States' army's service at Gettysburg. I understand the later -- the law is itself a monument.
Now I want to talk about the North Carolina monument at Appomatox. It commemorates the final battle before Lee surrendered, in which troops from North Carolina participated. There's a picture of it in the upper right. It reads in part:
This stone is erected by the authority of the general assembly of North Carolina in grateful and perpetual memory to the valor, endurance, and patriotism of her sons, who followed with unshaken fidelity the fortunes of the Confederacy to this closing scene, faithful to the end. Erected 9 April 1905.
I get that monuments are placed often through the acts of a legislature, but I'm interested in why monuments so frequently have law on them? It seems like the act of the legislature is sort of subordinate to the larger message that the monument's placers want to convey.
In a subsequent post I talk some more about the North Carolina monument itself, because it's pretty interesting how the monument discusses the North Carolina free and slave population.
I think a lot of it is using formal language to say "the State Assembly paid for this monument." Using the "by the authority of . . ." language may just be a side effect of trying to maintain a formal, solemn tone.
Posted by: Charles Paul Hoffman | May 17, 2012 at 06:29 PM
Interesting thought. A lot of monuments say who paid for them (I think this is required in SC -- or used to be), but even that's sort of strange, isn't it? Then it becomes a monument to the people who put it up, rather than the people who're being honored. But maybe that's the point -- it's a monument to the state legislature in 1905 rather than the soldiers of NC in 1865?
Moreover, the monument and "the law" are both forms of making an official history. Each works to amplify the other's message.
Posted by: Alfred Brophy | May 17, 2012 at 09:07 PM
I wouldn't say that the monument becomes more about the state legislature than the soldiers, just that the legislature (or whomever) has made itself a part of the story. You're right in saying that practically all monuments and plaques list who paid for it. It creates a narrative of "this group worked hard to make sure we remembered our history". Like, all the plaques put up the DAR subtly remind us that the DAR isn't just a group of stodgy women with old ancestry; they're also involved (or, more likely, were involved) in helping to create a lasting memory of the American Revolution.
Posted by: Charles Paul Hoffman | May 18, 2012 at 09:24 AM